It finally happened. Brother Peter Dimond and I debated an issue concerning Baptism of Desire. It was a lot of fun. I love it when I’m called a “total liar” and “Heretic” and that I’m “possessed by the Devil” over and over again for defending my Catholic Faith and good bishops and priests who do the same.
The reason for the debate to happen so soon was due to an email exchange which began with me writing to Bro. Peter, “Quite frankly, I thought your debates were good. I wish you could have capitalized on Sungenis on a few points, but that’s okay. Hindsight is 20/20. I actually like you and Sungenis.”
Bro. Peter replied Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:49:49 -0400 (EDT)
To your comment, Sungenis’ position was clearly exposed and refuted. I don’t need your pointers on that. Also, it’s simply demonic for you to actually give credit to Sungenis for bringing you out of the Novus Ordo Church, when he defends the New Mass, Vatican II, etc.
Would you even say that Sungenis, who obstinately defends Vatican II and the antipopes as Catholic, is a heretic?
I responded Thu, Jun 27, 2013 11:18 PM
Dear Bro. Peter,
I didn’t give you any pointers. I said that I wish you “could have capitalized on Sungenis on a few points.” That’s not a pointer. A pointer would have been to tell you how you could have done it. I didn’t do that. I simply told you what I would have like to have seen. You don’t have to agree with me.
I do give credit to Sungenis because before anyone else, he showed me the first problems with Rome such as the Assisi Events and rightly criticized them. This woke me up. However, Sungenis doesn’t follow through with the implications with what he criticizes. In personal emails, I saw that he couldn’t answer certain things which led me to believe that things were more serious. Then I looked deeper and that’s when I discovered you, Cekada, Lane, etc. To call it demonic for me to give credit to Sungenis misses the point.
I like Sungenis for the good that he does, as I like you for the good that you do. I don’t like the fact that Sungenis defends Vat2 and the antipopes as Catholic. I believe his soul is in great peril if he doesn’t own up to the truth, but I’m not God. Only God judges his interior heart, but on the objective level he’s terribly wrong, and yes a heretic if he really believes Vat2.
I like you for the great work in exposing Rome. I don’t like how you judge the interior hearts and intentions of people. I don’t like how you speak to others like the comment you made on my blog. I also don’t like how you misrepresent and reject BOD/BOB. I believe your soul is in great peril. That’s why I’m going to debate you. For the sake of your soul and those who believe like you on this point.
I can’t wait. Please let me know when you’re ready.
Sincerely,
Steven
Bro. Peter came back Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:42:25 -0400 (EDT)
Notice how you misrepresent what I said. I didn’t say you gave me any pointers. I said I don’t need your pointers. Your response is thus a misrepresentation of what I said.
Second, you have no problem with the many lies that other posters on your site spread about us, but when we respond you have a problem with it. That’s hypocrisy.
You say my soul is in peril. Well, I tell you with certainty that your soul is on the road to Hell. I will let you know as we get closer to the first debate.
I replied Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:17 AM
You implied that I gave you pointers or else you wouldn’t have said it. Thus, I didn’t misrepresent you.
Secondly, I didn’t say anything about the other posters, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a problem with them. You don’t know if I let others know personally how I feel about what they say about you. To say,”hypocrisy” implies that you have made a judgment about me before getting all the whole facts. You jump to conclusions and like I said, you judge intentions, hearts, and things only God knows. Your email proves me right, thank you very much.
Bro. Peter replied Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
No, you are wrong. Do you want to have the first debate right now? If you stick to the topic, rather than throw in other objections, we can have the first debate right now.
My reply Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:45 AM
What are you talking about, topic and other objections? You made statements and you have been shown to be wrong on very simple points. Can you not admit that you have rushed to judgment?
What debate are you wanting right now?
Bro. Peter Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:51:26 -0400 (EDT)
Right now, we can debate the specific topic of whether your priests believe that souls can be saved in false religions. That will be the topic; but if you stray from it in this debate, that will be inadmissible.
I wrote Fri, Jun 28, 2013 12:57 AM
You just now, about a minute ago, lied about me on my blog saying that I believe souls can be saved in false religions. I’ve made it abundantly clear to youthat no one can be saved in false religions.
Will you take it back what you said on my blog and admit that you have misrepresented me?
Steven
Bro. Peter responded Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:59:06 -0400 (EDT)
I’ll prove that’s what you believe in the debate. Let’s debate.
I wrote Fri, Jun 28, 2013 01:00 AM
Do you want to go first or me?
‘
I gave him my phone number and he called me at 1:22 AM
THE DEBATE
(really just a phone discussion as I would have with a friend…hardly a real debate)
If the above email exchange was any indication how this debate was going to go, you knew it wasn’t going to be pretty. However, in my arrogance and vanity (the sin I struggle with), I wanted to prove that I’m willing to go the distance even though I work 15 hour days with very little sleep, not to mention that I’m a father of 3. In my mind, I told myself to be humble and patient as I can regardless how often he twists my words or attacks me with liar, demonic this or that, etc. Hopefully, people can hear in my voice that I’m not a bully or anything else that is thought of me. I’m a person who will talk, listen, and be kind when the other party is not.
First of all, the recording has Br. Peter booming loud and strong and I sound like I’m deep in a cave. This is great advantage to him for debate purposes. He’s overpowering what I’m saying at times.
As you will hear, Bro. Peter had no intention of listening or understanding what I’m saying. I must defend Bp McKenna and other priests for the statements they have made. For instance, It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.’
I have to say that supernatural life is heretical as it is stated if it means life of grace. Therefore, I have to admit to Bro. Peter that it’s heretical if that is what is meant.
Is that what is meant in the statement? I don’t think so. I would give the benefit of the doubt that Fr. Fahey and Bp. McKenna mean a life well intentioned rather than a life of grace. Of course, Bro. Peter will not hear any of it. I’m trying to be sincere in the debate, but Bro. Peter thought that I was just lying and being dishonest about it.
NOTICE THAT HE DOESN’T SAY “LIFE OF GRACE” but rather “SUPERNATURAL LIFE WHICH GOD WISHES TO SEE IN EVERY SOUL.” Bro. Peter translates the statement to mean Life a Grace. At 15:15 into the debate, Bro. Peter actually LIES when he says that Fr. Denis says, “A Jew who rejects Christ can have a state of grace.” THAT’S NOT WHAT Fr. Denis stated, but rather “supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul.” BRO. PETER LIED AND MISLEAD ME to think that’s what Bp. McKenna fully agrees with. He called me the liar, yet it was Bro. Peter who did the lying. That lie by Bro. Peter bugged me all night, because I never saw a quote by Fr. Denis or McKenna that stated what Bro. Peter stated. Now I know the truth about what was really said. Bro. Peter is the liar.
I did admit that I would admit defeat in the debate “if” they really said and mean it the way Bro. Peter thinks. But it really doesn’t matter what any of us hold, because Bro. Peter doesn’t believe that God can save a person at death in a mystery that we don’t understand. No matter what is meant, our position is heretical because Bro. Peter holds that BOD is heretical. Keep this in mind when you listen.
The bottom line of the debate is this: Anyone who at death God wishes to be saved will enlighten that person with the true Faith and repentance. I repeated it several times to make sure that point was understood no matter how bad Bro. Peter would attempt to twist my position. Baptism of desire is a type of conversion at the moment of death, but Bro. Peter said conversion at death is not the issue because we all believe that people who convert at death will be saved. The problem is the conversion that Bp. McKenna, etc. and myself hold is a conversion that Bro. Peter rejects is possible. IT’S THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE.
Regardless if McKenna and the others use phrases that could mislead, they understand BOD as I just explained.
I was asked if the invincibly ignorant can be saved. I’ve explained over and over that invincible ignorance doesn’t save. Those who are invincibly ignorant must be given grace at death of repentance and infusion of the true Faith.
So if I say the invincible ignorant can be saved, Bro. Peter could say that I believe that you don’t need to know Christ to be saved. I was careful with my words. It’s all a matter of perspective. I can say the invincible ignorant can be saved and not be saved and both statements be true. The former in the sense that the can be saved in a future tense by given the grace to know better, and the latter in the sense they can’t be saved at death. However, I kept it to the point.
The whole debate is about perspective, but Bro. Peter only wants me to say what he wants me to say to win a debate. He simply wouldn’t hear that BOD is a type of conversion at death.
We spoke about judging in the internal forum. We can say that someone is not in grace if that person is not baptized which is part of the internal forum, but we can’t judge the intentions of one’s heart. Bro. Peter tried hard to make me look like I’m contradicting myself with the example of Christopher Hitchens.
I’ll let you listen and be the judge whether I was really lying and contradicting myself. If so, please let me know where specifically.
Bro. Peter Dimond said he would continue on with another debate with me soon. I suggest the next debate to be on the words of the popes themselves. Bro. Peter calls me a heretic for believing that man can be saved without water baptism. I’ll like to turn the debate around and let him answer the numerous teachings from popes that teach precisely to what I hold to which he rejects. Are these pope not heretics in his eyes? It’s the same debate but in reverse.
We’ll see if Bro. Peter Dimond can use the same logic against me as he does with the popes that say or imply what I said over and over in the first debate.
Click below to hear the debate:
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
It’s clear you did contradict yourself during the debate but most of all you were just talking too much and seemed like a crazy person who couldn’t shut up. It’s annoying to hear these debates because clear distinctions aren’t made and a lot of time is wasted and one doesn’t stop speaking etc.
SPERAY REPLIES: Name the contradiction. Don’t just make a claim and not back it up.
If you would have remained silent and clarified things that would have been better but you just kept yapping and it was messy. Well, from the many debates i have seen of people like you, you ALL behave in that way.
Oh and, what does SUPERNATURAL life mean then? You mean to say it DOESN’T mean being in the state of grace? Will you say mere good will or mere good intentions are SUPERNATURAL?
You really need to think what you’re saying.
SPERAY REPLIES: He states, ““SUPERNATURAL LIFE WHICH GOD WISHES TO SEE IN EVERY SOUL.” It doesn’t say, “state of Grace” which is how Bro Peter says at 15:15. He LIED! PERIOD! It is possible for it to mean something else like a well-intentioned life.
I will name them, but i will have to listen to it again to be precise.
I know Bob Dimond said state of grace, which i believe is a reasonable thing to do given that Fahey said “supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Thank you for the comments and the specifics, but think about it, Peter still lied about the words.
The state of grace is supernatural.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes it is, but notice the qualifier, “which God wishes to see in EVERY soul.” If taken to mean “state of grace” then there would be no need to be baptized, believe, hold the faith, be sorry, etc. yet I personally know Bp McKenna and what he believes. You may call him up yourself and ask him whether souls outside of the Church are in a state of grace. I assure you he wouldn’t say that souls outside of the Church can be in a state of grace. So why not give him the benefit of the doubt that he means what I suggested when it’s reasonable? Know what I mean? Bro. Peter jumps to conclusions just like our email proves. He doesn’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it’s the reasonable thing to do.
A “well-intentioned life” is not supernatural.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t like the phrase either, but is it not reasonable to think that we sometimes use words and phrases that aren’t exactly correct, but mean correctly? Listen, if we are well-intentioned, does it come from us or is it a response to actual grace? Since we can’t do anything good, not even have good intentions without God’s grace, then responding positively to it would be in a sense supernatural. No one can convert without have good intentions which comes from responding to God’s grace which puts us in some sense of the supernatural. It doesn’t have to mean “state of grace” and that’s my point. Do you still disagree or have I given a reasonable answer? Bro Peter would have interrupted me and called me liar and said I was contradicting myself because he wouldn’t hear a reasonable answer. He’s not interested in what I have to say.
Come on now, it’s clear Fahey was just using a synonym and saying the state of grace with different words; this is just semantics.
SPERAY REPLIES: I think I’ve given a reasonable answer to the problem. Would you not agree?
Also, i will make a point that Bob simply didnt make for some reason: Sanborn and all the other sedevacantists are speaking about people who DIE as pagans, jews idolaters etc., people WHO DIE in that state, who GO to their particular judgment as a non-Catholic, outside the fold and without the Faith, THEY ARE SPEAKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DIE IN THAT CONDITION, but YOU were saying over and over again that “at death we don’t know what happens, God may enlighten them in a mystery, this is what BOD is!” when Sanborn and others DO NOT SAY ANY OF THAT. They said nothing of them being “enlightened” at death and what YOU were saying, and that was totally dishonest on your part. Bob pointed this out but not as good as he should have.
SPERAY REPLIES: From the perspective of the external forum, it would appear that all them are dying outside of the Church. BOD is something we don’t see. It happens at death. Look how Rev. Michael Muller puts it: Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Also, what is truly disgusting is that you apply BOD to all these people WHO HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT BAPTISM TO BEGIN WITH OR ABOUT CHRIST, THE CHURCH ETC. AND HENCE CAN’T POSSIBLY DESIRE TO BE BAPTIZED.
SPERAY REPLIES: They most certainly can desire it implicitly. This is taught by Pope Pius IX, St. Pius X, and many others.
But the saints ONLY APPLIED THEM TO CATECHUMENS. This is one of the outrages today, of people like you who have totally corrupted what bod/bob were to begin with. Now they have nothing to do with what the Saints taught and now you clearly say non-Catholics may be saved by BOD “in a mystery”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Catechumens are non-Catholics. BOD is a mystery. Those who live outside of the Church through no fault of their own, but please God by living a “well-intentioned life” (if there is such a person) then God can enlighten the person at death with THE FAITH and Repentance. This is not hard to understand. As for the saints, read below:
Justin Martyr (100-martyred 165)
First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]:
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid.”
St. Thomas Aquinas: “Man receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has BAPTISM IN DESIRE, EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY; and yet when he actually receives baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and THEIR DESIRE FOR BAPTISM, IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues.” (Summa Theologica 3, 69, 4)
Also, what do you make of original sin then? It is a dogma that those who die in original sin can’t go to Heaven. But only baptism removes original sin.
SPERAY REPLIES: Those who die in original sin can’t go to Heaven. That’s a dogma. Only baptism removes original sin under normal circumstances. God can remove original sin without it as the Catholic Church has taught in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, the law of the Church, the encyclicals of Pope Pius IX, and it’s even implied at the Council of Florence. Please read all my posts on this blog on the subject of Baptism of Desire and see that it’s the truth. I agreed not to bring these things up at the debate, but hopefully we can deal them at the next debate.
I will give a quick reply here in the meantime; i still haven’t re-listened to the debate.
First off, I do not believe that bod/bob are heretical and i obviously dont believe that those who believe in them are heretics. I actually held the position the Dimonds hold for a while because i was influenced by them but for some time now i no longer do.
I realized that it is simply useless and wrong to dare to say that they are heretical, because that would of course lead to the logical conclusion that so many saints and popes have been heretics for allowing and teaching this, which is of course ridiculous. The Dimonds seem to refuse to accept this and they shrug it off by saying “they were just mistaken” or “that doesn’t matter”. Well tough, it does matter.
My position is that i will wait for the Church to some day hopefully definitively clear up this issue, but in the meantime, i accept both could be true, salvation by water only, or also by bod/bob.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Church has cleared it up. They still haven’t defined it (you’re right), but they have taught it over and over in encyclicals, catechisms, and the law of the Church which we are not free to reject or say that it might not be true. Infallibility rests in the universal and ordinary magisterium, too, which is where and how BOD is taught.
I say neither is heretical of course and i will just refrain from declaring anything on the matter, because the truth is NO ONE right now has the authority to decide this anyways, and any debate on it will be useless, and for the Dimonds to dare to pontificate on this matter and say it is heretical is beyond comprehension.
SPERAY REPLIES: I just repeat what has been taught over and over. I’m not making anything up.
Also, i do not say that salvation by implicit faith is heretical either because i am nobody to say so and here again theologians have been on both sides of the matter, although no single saint believed in this, and that is the truth, they all believed there had to be EXPLICIT faith.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX expressly taught it in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, On Promotion of False Doctrines Encyclical, August 10, 1863:
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
That being said, i prefer to believe that God will make a miracle to get someone baptized, even resurrected, as has happened actually, and a miracle to get someone instructed by supernatural means, as St. Thomas taught, instead of bod/bob.
SPERAY REPLIES: Here is what St. Thomas Aquinas states:
Article I, Part III, Q 68:
“7 answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.’
Again, St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa, Part III, Question 66, Eleventh Article
“As stated in question 62, fifth article, baptism of water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. consequently, a man may, without baptism of water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): ‘these are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’ In like manner a man receives the effect of baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without baptism of water, but also without baptism of blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called the baptism of repentance. Of this it is written (Isaias 4:4): ‘If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgement, and by the spirit of burning.’ Thus, therefore, each of these other baptisms is called baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of baptism.”
St. Thomas completes this article by quoting the passage from St. Augustine He then moves on to the next question (66):
“Augustine [Ad Fortunatum], speaking of the comparison between baptisms says: ‘the newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest; the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop’s hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost.’“
“As stated above (article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ’s sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the baptism of water. Now the baptism of water derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, as already stated. These two causes act in each of these three baptisms; most excellently, however, in the baptism of blood. For Christ’s Passion acts in the baptism of water by way of desire; but in the baptism of blood by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the baptism of water through a certain hidden power; in the baptism of repentance by moving the heart; but in the baptism of blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13 ‘Greater love then this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends.’“
Again, St. Thomas Aquinas
Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (section 444):
“Two questions arise here. First, if no one enters the kingdom of God unless he is born again of water, and if the fathers of old were not born again of water (because they were not baptized), then they have not entered the kingdom of God. Secondly, since baptism is of three kinds, that is, of water, of desire and of blood, and many have been baptized in the latter two ways (who we say have entered the kingdom of God immediately, even though they were not born again of water), it does not seem to be true to say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The answer to the first is that rebirth or regeneration from water and the holy spirit takes place in two ways: in truth and in symbol. Now the fathers of old, although they were not reborn with a true rebirth, were nevertheless reborn with a symbolic rebirth, because they always had a sense perceptible sign in which true rebirth was prefigured. So according to this, thus reborn, they did enter the kingdom of God, after the ransom was paid. The answer to the second is that those who are reborn by a baptism of blood and fire, although they do not have regeneration in deed, they do have it in desire. Otherwise neither would the baptism of blood mean anything nor could there be a baptism of the Spirit. Consequently, in order than man may enter the kingdom of heaven, it is necessary that there baptism of water in deed, as is the case of all baptized persons, or in desire, as in the case of the martyrs and catechumens, who are prevented by death from fulfilling their desire, or in symbol as in the case of the fathers of old.”
My position is that of all the Saints, that you have to have explicit faith in at least the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved; i dont believe anyone ignorant of this can be saved at all.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. In BOD, God enlightens the mind of the ignorant with the Faith and repentance, and the person is no longer ignorant of the Faith. That’s what I repeated over and over in the debate.
There are many other things which i do not agree on with the Dimonds, and i do not believe they are real monks at all or deserving to be called and treated as such, which is why i call them by their real names, Fred and Bob. I believe they would not be regarded as real monks by the law of the Church anyways, because there are some problems with that, and of course the way they act and talk and behave just is NOT the way monks are supposed to.
To top it off they violate several points of the Holy Rule of St. Benedict.
SPERAY REPLIES: Thank you for your comments and taking time out to reply to my blog. I greatly appreciate your insights and the points that you made.
Steven Speray
Some years ago I had a similar debate with Bro. Peter Dimond on BOD and worshipping with heretics. The results were similar to what you are getting. From the evidence I have seen of his (Bro. Peter’s) debating abilities I have drawn the conclusion that the excellent articles on the Most Holy Family Monastery Web-page must be ghost written as they seem to be written by some one with much higher mental faculties than Bro. Peter demonstrates in his discussions. Has anyone you know had a similar feeling? Ronald Knarr
I don’t think everything the Dimond brothers write is good. They take the conciliar popes out of context, too. I don’t hear much from Bro. Michael, but in the past, he was very congenial over the phone. Bro. Peter is much more antagonistic. They do much good, but they also do much bad. I hope that God gives him a change of heart to be humble. At this point, he won’t admit that he’s wrong about anything.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Church has cleared it up. They still haven’t defined it (you’re right), but they have taught it over and over in encyclicals, catechisms, and the law of the Church which we are not free to reject or say that it might not be true. Infallibility rests in the universal and ordinary magisterium, too, which is where and how BOD is taught.
This is where i disagree. The Roman Catechism has only one sentence which seems to be teaching BOD (the term “baptism of desire” is not mentioned at all, nor is BOB) but it is contradicted by everything else it says about baptism; it says the sacrament is obligatory on ALL who are to be saved and it makes no exception to the sacrament and it even says it is the unanimous consent of holy writers.
In fact, what the Roman Catechism says about baptism rules out any notion of bod/bob.
Where has it been taught “over and over in encyclicals”? The terms do not appear in a single encyclical. The fact is no Pope has ever mentioned BOD nor BOB by name either. The only thing you can quote from a pope is a mere speech of Pius XII, a SPEECH, which could by all means not even be accurate and we are not even 100% sure he could have said it, and anyways, even then he does not even say “baptism of desire”.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX expressly taught it in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, On Promotion of False Doctrines Encyclical, August 10, 1863:
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
First of all, this has NOTHING to do with baptism of desire. Pius IX does not even use the term, nor says he is referring to it, nor is there any mention about baptism at all.
This is something that i must point out that i have seen done over and over again: the proponents of BOD somehow mix BOD with invincible ignorance, when the two have nothing to do with each other. Like i said, the saints always taught bod with respect to a catechumen, not someone who was invincibly ignorant of the faith. But now BOD has been applied to the invincibly ignorant who dont even have a clue about baptism.
Either way, what the Pope says here seems consistent with what Saint Thomas and even St Leonard of Port Maurice in “the little number of the saved” say about the INVINCIBLY IGNORANT, it has nothing to do with BOD.
This is from the Dimonds book: Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by
God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel] attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by baptism.
According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from darkness.
Ephesians 5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.”
1 Thess. 5:4‐5 “But you, brethren [believers], are not in darkness… For all you are the children of the light.”
Colossians 1:12‐13: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”
1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
2 Corinthians 4:3‐4: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
2 Timothy 1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and incorruption by the Gospel.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I (+1870): “… no one can ‘assent to the preaching of the Gospel,’ as he must to attain salvation, without the illumination and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and believing the truth.”
So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about the good‐willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace” contrary to their clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine light and grace is received by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being baptized. Thus, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good‐willed, sincere person who is ignorant of the
Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine light” (hearing the Gospel) and will enter the Catholic Church so that he can be saved.
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree. In BOD, God enlightens the mind of the ignorant with the Faith and repentance, and the person is no longer ignorant of the Faith. That’s what I repeated over and over in the debate.
Well this isnt even the definition of BOD all the saints have given it.
And let me reply to the explicit/implicit faith part.
First, faith in the essential dogmas of the Faith and faith in baptism/desire for it are very different things. With regard to the former, all the saints and even the Holy Office said you have to have EXPLICIT faith in and KNOWLEDGE OF the Trinity and Incarnation at least to be saved. But now the novelty says that you no longer need to have explicit faith in the essential mysteries to be saved, but IMPLICIT, and they say this about those who are in invincible ignorance, and there can be no such thing. If they are enlightened and come to the knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation, then how will it be implicit? They will no longer be ignorant.
And also, what St. Thomas said about implicit desire was with regards to BAPTISM, not the Trinity and the Incarnation, and if you read what he said, it is obvious he was talking about people who already KNEW of Christ.
So now this is the issue at hand: almost every single sedevacantist priest, like Cekada, Sanborn etc. say that people can be saved in any religion, dying in invincible ignorance, without any explicit knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and THAT is HERETICAL. It also has nothing to do with BOD, which is why i said that there has been a total perversion of it.
Hmm, I can’t comment on Antonio’s post below, but he claims Bp. Sanorn says they don’t need explicit faith in certain things. This is false, I have a letter from His Excellency via a friend in which he mentioned the need of belief in some revealed truths by divine faith for people in invincible ignorance, as well as other requirements, for salvation.
May the Sacred Heart of Jesus bless and protect you and the Immaculate Heart of Mary keep you!
I have yet to listen to the debate, but I’ve heard enough of the MHFM stuff to know how they go. And you’re right, they do make pronouncements as if from on high — this person is possessed, that person is going straight to hell, etc. It gets tiresome after a while, even if they’ve got some good observations. Anyway, keep up the good work, and I pray that you can support your family honorably after your recent difficult choice at your former job.
Mr. Steven Speray,
First, I applaud your excellent compilation “Debunking Sedevacantism?” as well as your original work “Papal Anomalies.”
Second, I have not yet listened to the debate but I have kept up with the material posted here thus far. So I agree with the remarks of “Peter in Chicago” (June 30,2013, 3:22 p.m.): The email exchanges you posted demonstrate your opponent’s use of Ad Hominem arguments (irrelevant attacks on the person making the claim rather than attacks on the claim itself). These may have shock value and thereby convince some in the audience who are swayed by cheap shots. But they don’t prove anything for or against the point in debate. Your replies are a credit to your integrity and gentleness.
Please remember that even our Lord while on earth, along with his apostles, needed to rest and get away from the crowds once in a while. So don’t overextend yourself. Rest, reflection, and prayer are essential for a good debate.
Below are citations from Cardinal Manning which you may find useful.
May God continue to bless you, your family, and your apostolate!
David Milovich
From His Eminence Henry Edward Manning, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, “The Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost” first published in 1875; fifth edition, 1904):
“Since the Fall, the Spirit of God has assisted from the beginning every man that has come into the world born of Adam; so that there never yet was any soul which had not sufficient grace, if it had sufficient fidelity to correspond with it, to escape eternal death. Keep in mind this great truth; for it is the foundation of the whole doctrine of grace. There are men so narrow as to say, that no soul among the heathen can be saved. The perfections of God, the attributes of mercy, love, tenderness, justice, equity—all rise up in array against so dark a theology” (page 17).
“And two Pontiffs have condemned as heresy the two following assertions. That the heathen, and the Jews, and heretics, receive no influence from Jesus Christ, but that their will is without help, that is, without grace, was condemned as a heresy by Alexander VIII. Again, that there is no grace given outside the Church, was also condemned as heresy by Clement XI. The work, therefore, of the Holy Ghost, even in the order of nature, so to say, that is, outside of the Church of God and of the revealed knowledge of Jesus Christ among the heathen—-that working is universal in the soul of every individual human being; and if they who receive the assistance of the Holy Ghost are faithful in corresponding with it, God in His unrevealed mercies will deal with them in ways secret from us. His mercies unknown to us are over all His works; and the infinite merits of the Redeemer of the world are before the mercy-seat of our Heavenly Father, for the salvation of those that follow even the little light which in the order of nature they receive” (page 19).
I listend to the debate and its such hypocrisy for the demon brothers to say Steve are in communion with “heretics,” i.e. Bishops Sanborn, Mckenna, etc., and yet, they go to a Mass that are in communion with the heretical “popes.”
I listened to most of the debate and you kept asserting the following or variations thereof (these words are yours taken from your original post above):
“The bottom line of the debate is this: Anyone who at death God wishes to be saved will enlighten that person with the true Faith and repentance. I repeated it several times to make sure that point was understood no matter how bad Bro. Peter would attempt to twist my position. Baptism of desire is a type of conversion at the moment of death….”
What exactly is your source for this? Can you please cite the Pope(s) or Doctor(s) who have stated that “G_d will enlighten a person with the True Faith at the moment of death.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX taught it in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore which I quote in the next comment. Pope St. Pius V implies it in the Roman Catechism. Since as Catholics we believe that perfect contrition is absolutely necessary if we are in mortal sin and can’t make it to confession, then by logical extension, it would be necessary for those outside of the Church. The same is true about the faith. If we who are baptized must believe, and the dogma that outside of the Church there’s no salvation, then by logical extension, the faith must be possessed to be a member of the Church. BOD is the mystical conversion into the Church. It’s implied through the many teachings of the Church.
Are you claiming this is a dogmatic fact? de fide? ex cathedra? Magisterial? Please provide full citations. I am not aware of any traditional Catholic source (pre-1850) that claims what you are describing is a reality or even a possibility. (Note: I am not saying there is no such citation, just that I am not aware of it.)
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s not a dogma because the Church hasn’t defined it. One old source is Rev. Michael Müller’s catechism here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/fr-michael-muller-c-s-s-r-taught-the-doctrine-of-baptism-of-desire/
I am fully aware that some Doctors argued for Baptism of Desire and St. Alphonsus called it “de fide.” But did anyone assert exactly how it “takes place” in the detail you are providing?
SPERAY REPLIES: How it takes place in detail is a mystery. I can’t provide that info. All I can do is tell you what must be present since the Church has said as much.
What is the source for your detail? It is obvious from the unqualified “certainty” in which you speak of how and when this occurs that you believe if is a “dogmatic fact” – I want to know how you can be so “sure.”
Thanks.
SPERAY REPLIES: I am quite sure, but it’s not a dogma, but it is a doctrine which is (sententia fidei proxima). Ludwig Ott explains it in Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.
….regarding this point….
What exactly is your source for this? Can you please cite the Pope(s) or Doctor(s) who have stated that “G_d will enlighten a person with the True Faith at the moment of death.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX taught it in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore which I quote in the next comment.
QCM does not refer to the “moment of death”, and it does not contain the word “death” or equivalent. QCM says that enlightenment can take place but not at “the moment of death”. One cannot conclude from QCM that a “special” enlightment takes place at or before “the moment of death.” Also, QCM is not ex cathedra nor non-fallible.
Thus, QCM cannot be cited supporting your thesis “enlightment at the moment of death.”
SPERAY REPLIES: When do you think it happens based on QCM? Also, do you think there are people in heaven that don’t know the faith? I’m sure every good Catholic believes that everyone in heaven has the faith, therefore, why should we not think that God infuses the faith and repentance at death if we believe in BOD? Again, if salvation can be attained outside of the Church, there’s no need for BOD.
You asked:
SPERAY REPLIES: When do you think it happens based on QCM?
This question is actually moot, since QCM does not speak to the particulars of the enlightment but rather mentions it only in passing. But, the passing reference QCM makes to to it, comports to previous teachings – about the invincibly ignorant – that wrestle specifically and at greater detail and length. For example St Thomas Aquinas:
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1:
objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. Reply- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”
Again, the “moment of death” issue is not addressed, but it would seem an odd contradiction to provide special enlightment, without also special arrangements for the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e. Water Baptism). Sorta like “half a miracle.” Again, the “moment of death” issue cannot be presumed, and the shunning of evil (e.g. refusal to be an idolater, adulterer, thief, etc.) is a prerequisite. Thus your “internal forum” argument fails.
St. Paul also speaks directly to the need for pre-death instruction:
“How will they believe and be saved if they do not hear? How will they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:13-14)
“And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost” (2 Cor 4:3)
Also, numerous miraculous baptisms (where people are resurrected from the dead specifically in order to receive actual Water Baptism) would be completely unnecessary.
P.S.
MHFM has an excellent explanation of the limitations of QCM – here’s the link.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#quanto
SPERAY REPLIES: So you’re not going to answer the question at the top? Did you also read the link above and see how the Dimond’s quote Fr. Michael Müller C.SS.R. supporting their position when in fact he clearly teaches BOD in his catechism, not to mention the very work the Dimond’s quote him from?
…you said….
SPERAY REPLIES: So you’re not going to answer the question at the top? Did you also read the link above and see how the Dimond’s quote Fr. Michael Müller C.SS.R. supporting their position when in fact he clearly teaches BOD in his catechism, not to mention the very work the Dimond’s quote him from?
Actually, I did answer the question by pointing out that it is a moot/flawed question, and thus did not require answering. Also, I brought forth specific Catholic teaching which takes the issue head-on, rather than in passing/incidentally.
When MHFM quotes a non-Magisterial/non-infallible authority (like Muller), they apply the obvious test, namely: Does the authority’s teaching comport with the Church’s Magisterium? Almost all of Muller’s work (as far as I know), like that of St. Thomas Aquinas is excellent and comports with and is reconcilable to the Magisterium. However, where they, or any other authority departs from it, their teaching (on that specific topic) must be rejected. Thus, the “contradiction” you are implying on the part of MHFM is no “contradiction” at all.
SPERAY REPLIES: It most certainly is a contradiction. I’ve reconciled Bp McKenna’s statement, too. Bro Peter is not interested in giving anyone the benefit of the doubt except those saints that he likes. Of course, he thinks those saints must be idiots because they didn’t understand Trent.
…..regarding this point….
“Since as Catholics we believe that perfect contrition is absolutely necessary if we are in mortal sin and can’t make it to confession, then by logical extension, it would be necessary for those outside of the Church.”
Are you saying here that non-Catholics can have their sins remitted (forgiven) if they “have” perfect contrition?
SPERAY REPLIES: Only if God infuses the Faith into that person with the perfect contrition at death.
Related issue: Do you believe that “Orthodox” who receive “absolution” from “Orthodox” priests (who are valid) actually have their sins remitted?
SPERAY REPLIES: Outside of the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins.
….you say….
SPERAY REPLIES: Outside of the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins.
How can you assert this? By what exact authority?
SPERAY: Unam Sanctum, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
….regarding this point…..
“BOD is the mystical conversion into the Church. It’s implied through the many teachings of the Church.
Are you claiming this is a dogmatic fact? de fide? ex cathedra? Magisterial? Please provide full citations. I am not aware of any traditional Catholic source (pre-1850) that claims what you are describing is a reality or even a possibility. (Note: I am not saying there is no such citation, just that I am not aware of it.)
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s not a dogma because the Church hasn’t defined it. One old source is Rev. Michael Müller’s catechism here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/fr-michael-muller-c-s-s-r-taught-the-doctrine-of-baptism-of-desire/”
You claim “many teachings of the Church” support BOD. Can you please provide a full citation list of these “many teachings” on your website? (MHFM does this to support their positions.)
SPERAY REPLIES: I give many citations from saints that support BOD and BOB in my book and in other places on this blog.
Also, Muller is not really pre-1850 – he was only 25 in 1850. Any others, older?
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ll have to do some research for a specific quote that you’re looking for. Rev. Michael Müller is the best one off the top of my head.
Also, Muller is not using theological reasoning here, but rather stating something as fact without foundation. Maybe he provides it in his book, but it’s not on the link you provided:
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Is Rev. Michael Müller a heretic for teaching it?
…..you said…..
“SPERAY REPLIES: I give many citations from saints that support BOD and BOB in my book and in other places on this blog.”
I assume all of these quotes can be found in MHFM’s book “Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.” I assume you have read that and all of your citations can be found there. If you don’t have the book, you can read it for free at their web-site.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, I’ve read it. Did you notice that he’s willing to call Bp McKenna a heretic, but not St. Alphonsus Liguori? Did you notice how he ignores the implications of the Roman Catechism and the law of the Church?
Please list any of your BOD/BOB citations not in MHFM’s book, if any.
Why not just take MHFM’s book and refute it page-by-page, chapter-by-chapter?
SPERAY REPLIES: I did refute all the arguments, but I didn’t do it page-by-page, chapter-by-chapter.
…you asked me….
“SPERAY REPLIES: Is Rev. Michael Müller a heretic for teaching it?”
Did Muller “teach it” or “repeat it”?
Did he obstinately cling to BOD or was just going along with the “fashion of the day?”
Did anyone point out to him how it is a completely untenable position based on the necessary ramifications and implications of traditional Catholic teaching and dogma?
Did he write a book that “interpreted away” (ad infinitum) the clearly defined Catholic teaching on Baptism?
If he was not obstinate, and erred in good faith, then he would have been a material heretic – assuming he (in good faith) believed that Water Baptism is optional.
If he was obstinate on this issue, after reviewing and pondering the relevant evidence, and believed that Water Baptism is optional, then he would have been a formal heretic.
A material heretic is still a Catholic, whilst a formal heretic is not.
SPERAY REPLIES: Interesting that you ask those questions, but Bro. Peter Dimond doesn’t ask the same questions with Bp McKenna. So you reject BOD completely? Do you also reject BOB?
….you said….
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, I’ve read it. Did you notice that he’s willing to call Bp McKenna a heretic, but not St. Alphonsus Liguori? Did you notice how he ignores the implications of the Roman Catechism and the law of the Church?
Please list any of your BOD/BOB citations not in MHFM’s book, if any.
Why not just take MHFM’s book and refute it page-by-page, chapter-by-chapter?
SPERAY REPLIES: I did refute all the arguments, but I didn’t do it page-by-page, chapter-by-chapter.
….and also…..
SPERAY REPLIES: Interesting that you ask those questions, but Bro. Peter Dimond doesn’t ask the same questions with Bp McKenna. So you reject BOD completely? Do you also reject BOB?
First, the issue is obstinacy and absence of good faith error. According to MHFM, they have had previous correspondence with McKenna. If so, McKenna cannot be excused for a good faith error given his knowledge, access to a wealth of information, and his study of the topic at hand.
SPERAY REPLIES: Bro Peter wouldn’t even listen to me. If he treated others like McKenna as he treated me, then Bro. Peter’s accusations are false. He called me the liar when he did the lying.
Second, historic context cannot be ignored. For example, Monothelitism was officially condemned as heretical in 681 A.D.. Could someone error in good faith on this matter in 680 A.D or previous – of course. Could someone error in good faith on this matter in 682 A.D., given the notoriety of the issue at that time and personal knowledge of the issue – of course not. Can a Catholic error in good faith on this topic in 2013 – yes – because the topic is rarely discussed.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have catechisms, laws, etc. that teach BOD. Where has the Church specifically condemned it? Please answer that question.
So could Muller or St. Alphonsus have been in good faith error during their eras – sure.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not on this issue because they weren’t ignorant of Trent. They can’t be ignorant of something so central to the Faith as salvation after Trent’s canons. To imply it is silly! I’m sorry.
Could McKenna, who has studied the issue, writes “authoritatively” on the issue, and lives in the recent historical wake of the “Feeneyism” be erring in good faith on this issue – of course not. The presumption of pertinacity cuts against him here.
SPERAY REPLIES: Then you are calling me a heretic, too, because I’ve studied the issue as well.
Third, you say that MHFM is “ignoring the implications of the Roman Catechism.” No they aren’t. They’ve already addressed it here:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Catechismoftrent
SPERAY REPLIES: They are basically calling the catechism heretical. Can you name a single authority in the Church that has ever criticized that point in the Catechism until the Dimond brothers?
But according to you, you “did refute all the arguments” from their book, already. So, please provide the link where you have already refuted this specific point from MHFM.
SPERAY REPLIES: You’ll have to wait until the next debate because I will address it then. I can assure you they have indeed ignored or missed the implications of the Roman Catechism.
Also, why not just create a master index web-page that includes all of your “refutations” to their book?
…..you said….
SPERAY REPLIES: Bro Peter wouldn’t even listen to me. If he treated others like McKenna as he treated me, then Bro. Peter’s accusations are false. He called me the liar when he did the lying.
I think Br. Peter said he corresponded with McKenna via letters, so I don’t think cross-talk was an issue. Your second sentence (If…..then) makes no sense.
SPERAY REPLIES: If you read my emails with Bro. Peter, you’ll see that he twists letters, too.
Br. Peter – in his post-debate analysis – says you conflated conversion before death and “conversion after death.” I agree with his assessment. But to be fair, please clarify the applicability of the “salvation for the invincibly ignorant” for the following cases. The “moment of death” being defined here as the exact moment when the soul separates from the body.
A.) A non-Catholic, unbaptized, conscious (i.e. able to reason) person, who then believes, desires baptism, and the receives water baptism shortly before the moment of death. (This case is the non-controversial one, since – I presume – we all agree to it.)
B.) Same as A, except no water baptism.
C.) Same as A, except no belief or desire, but is water baptized against their will and verbally states their strong objections.
D.) Same as A, except the person is unconscious (e.g. in a coma), has never expressed belief or desire, but is baptized while they are unconscious, and then dies in that same coma.
E.) A non-Catholic, unbaptized, conscious (i.e. able to reason) person who rejects the Catholic Faith up to and including the moment of death, but before their particular judgment.
F.) Same as E, except at their particular judgment.
G.) Same as E., except after their particular judgment.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t know what he’s talking about conversion before death. We all know that conversion before death is a different topic. The topic concerns BOD. I’m speaking at death as Rev. Michael Müller pointed out. I explain perfectly what I mean in the articles concerning the debate. I also explain it perfectly in the debate itself. I suppose with all the name calling and interruptions, it was missed. Anyone invincibly ignorant (only God knows) could be given the grace at death if that person pleases God in a way we don’t see or understand and if God so pleases to save such a person. I just read the several comments on MHFM’s website that called me a disgusting liar and the usual things that would naturally come from the followers of the cult of MHFM. I proudly wear that badge of honor coming from those individuals. They hear what they want to hear because in the comments they have completely missed the points I made and misrepresented my position. I feel sorry for them. They will be judged in the manner that they judge!
I’m just asking you to address the specific cases I have provided (Cases A – G). It shouldn’t be that hard.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t believe water is necessary under extraordinary circumstances as the Roman Catechism and the law of the Church teach. The person would need to have at least implicit desire which only God knows. BOD is something God does and I would presume it would happens immediately before the particular judgment.
Hello Steven,
I listened to the debate with Robert Dimond with interest. My first comment is that you should never have agreed to debate him. The reason is that you were unprepared and it really showed. I am surprised that you have been involved with Sedevacantism for as long as you have, and were not prepared to debate Dimond in the least, neither on your own position which came across as unsure and contradictory, but also in the cheap tactics used by Dimond on his opponents. Frankly you acted shell-shocked. It reminded me of a Mike Tyson fight from the 80’s where a challenger wanted a shot at the title fight and made all kinds of noise in the press in the months leading up to the big fight. But once the fight began his opponent was knocked out within 30 seconds. Frankly, you debated so poorly that I wouldn’t clearly know what your position was were it not for reading the comments and some of your Website. You had very little to offer in counter arguments, nor did you effectively question Dimond on his. As you should have known, one of Dimond’s tactics is to bombard his opponents with questions “let me ask you this then, etc.” and keep them always on the defense. You walked right into it as though you never heard him “debate” before, if that is what you can call what he does, and you got schooled on a topic you should have been able to stand your ground on. Please understand that it’s neither brave nor smart to pick a fight with a superior fighter and not prepare yourself for his best shots. I suggest the next time you debate Dimond that you prepare in advance for the topic, suggest a moderator for equal time, get a neutral party to control the microphone volume and prepare yourself better for the barrage of assaults he employs against his opponents. He can be led to lose composure if you actually stand in there with him. But you can’t do it unprepared like that or you will end up embarrassing yourself. IF you debate him again, on behalf of those who believe in Baptism of Desire as a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, please prepare for the debate, or just don’t do it at all. All my best,
John P
SPERAY REPLIES: Awesome comment! Thank you for the advice and the criticism! I will be better prepared next time. I was trying to humble and friendly, but I guess I have to get tough with the likes of the Dimond brothers.
….you said….
SPERAY REPLIES: You have catechisms, laws, etc. that teach BOD. Where has the Church specifically condemned it? Please answer that question.
Are you sure you’ve read Bro. Peter’s book? He has already addressed this argument here:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#argumentfromsilence
By your logic, the concept of the Immaculate Conception is ridiculous since it was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica for about 6 centuries, without condemnation from any Pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: It was before the dogma proclaimed, not after. BOD is after the dogma. BIG DIFFERENCE. You’re argument fails miserably and I’ve already answered it a dozen times in past comments. You’re wasting my time.
Just because something has not (yet) been explicitly condemned by the Magisterium, does not make it true or tenable even if it is widely taught in catechisms. Interestingly, Pope Pius IX and subsequent popes recommended Summa Theologica to seminarians and priests without a correction for the heretical error regarding the Immaculate Conception.
SPERAY REPLIES: And if St. Aquinas taught that Mary was a sinner AFTER the declaration, he wouldn’t have been a saint, and his books would not be recommended. I’m sorry, but you’re wasting my time with things I’ve dealt with many times in past comments.
…back and forth….you and me…..
Third, you say that MHFM is “ignoring the implications of the Roman Catechism.” No they aren’t. They’ve already addressed it here:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Catechismoftrent
SPERAY REPLIES: They are basically calling the catechism heretical. Can you name a single authority in the Church that has ever criticized that point in the Catechism until the Dimond brothers?
First, they are not basically calling it heretical, but rather they explicitly call it fallible.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG. They hold BOD as a heresy. They believe it’s a dogma that man can only be saved with the sacrament of baptism and that God can’t save a person without it. Therefore, the conclusion must be that the Catechism is heretical because it denies what they think is a dogma.
You too must admit that it is indeed fallible as it contains the following heretical statement:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”
Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that, “Outside the Church, no grace is granted.”
So you and MHFM agree that this Catechism is fallible, right?
SPERAY REPLIES: The Dimond brothers and you have drawn the wrong conclusion! There’s a distinction between types of grace. The Catechism doesn’t error. It’s absolutely correct because the presumption is sanctifying grace since you must have it to be in a state of grace. Pope Clement was condemning the idea that no actual grace is granted outside of the Church. This obvious because without it, no one would be able to convert since actual grace must be given to non-Catholics in order to convert. The Church can’t promulgate a formal heresy. The fact that you and the Dimond brothers would use this argument is unbelievable! It’s possible for the Church to promulgate an error before a formal teaching on it, which is why things like the catechism are fallible, but to say that something is fallible implies that the Church can promulgate a heresy against a proclaimed dogma is clearly false. As a matter of fact, I think this assertion by you and the Dimond’s is a heresy itself. I’m going to check up on it to find out precisely where.
As far as your “single authority” question, I’ll answer you with a question:
Can you name a single authority in the Church that has ever criticized the above point in the Catechism (about grace outside the Church) until the Dimond brothers?
SPERAY REPLIES: No, because the Dimond brothers are wrong about it as I have just proved. They may be heretics for saying so. Now answer my question, please.
…you said…
SPERAY REPLIES: No, because the Dimond brothers are wrong about it as I have just proved. They may be heretics for saying so. Now answer my question, please.
I’ll have to do some research for a specific quote that you’re looking for.
Also, since you seem to be “betting the farm” on the Catechism of Trent and you believe that the Dimond Brothers are dead wrong about it, why not just develop a point-by-point refutation of their ENTIRE dissertation on it. Here’s the link again:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Catechismoftrent
In fairness to their position, you really do need to refute their position on it “in toto” rather than piecemeal. Again, if you’ve already done it, like you claim, you can just provide the link for it. If you’re not ready/willing to do it now, then you will need to do so at a future debate with them (heads-up).
While you’re at it, here’s a full video presentation fro them as well:
SPERAY REPLIES:ALREADY DEBUNKED IT. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CULT OF MHFM?
….ad hominem – nice touch…..
Again, where’s the link to your refutation?
SPERAY REPLIES: If you thought I was using ad hominum, I apologize, but if you really cared, you would have asked me for a copy of my book. Would you be interested in speaking over the phone so I don’t spend countless hours answering emails and comments? I have a family that needs me. I’m not going to speak with you like Bro. Peter did with me, nor will I record it and use against you, but will speak with you like a brother in faith.
….you and me, back and forth…..
So could Muller or St. Alphonsus have been in good faith error during their eras – sure.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not on this issue because they weren’t ignorant of Trent. They can’t be ignorant of something so central to the Faith as salvation after Trent’s canons. To imply it is silly! I’m sorry.
C’mon now, have you really read MHFM’s book? They have explained at length why St. Alphonsus was wrong here. St. Alphonsus even confuses a section on penance with a section on baptism. Sloppy – yes, Obstinately heretical – no. Actually his sloppiness in this case indicates that he would more likely be willing to change his mind given the correct information, as opposed to obstinate.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#stalphonsus
SPERAY REPLIES: And yet, you can’t draw the same conclusions as Bp McKenna. Total hypocrisy! I stand by my statement. St. Alphonsus understood Trent as Trent’s own catechism explains.
But you’ve already “refuted” their argument on this – so can you provide a link to your refutation please?
SPERAY REPLIES: I refute it in one of your other comments.
P.S.
St. Alphonsus said BOD is de fide. Do you agree with him on this OR do you think he erred on this?
SPERAY REPLIES: He erred, but it wasn’t a formal heresy. Big difference! Popes and saints can err, but they can’t go against a proclaimed dogma especially right after the dogma is proclaimed in a council. The Catechism of Trent taught exactly opposite what the Dimond brothers call de fide teaching at the very council that called the catechism. In other words, the Church promulgated a Catechism immediately after the Council and got the most important dogma wrong (in fact taught a major heresy) and not a single authority for 500 years has said anything about it until the Dimond brothers. Seriously? That sounds like Martin Luther to me. 1500 years go by until a priest gets the bible right. And you’re going to tell me the Dimond’s are right and have given a good explanation to the problem to the Roman Catechism? You sound like those Protestants who follow Luther, except you follow the new Luther’s of today, Michael and Peter Dimond.
…you said….
SPERAY REPLIES: He erred, but it wasn’t a formal heresy. Big difference! Popes and saints can err, but they can’t go against a proclaimed dogma
especially right after the dogma is proclaimed in a council. The Catechism of Trent taught exactly opposite what the Dimond brothers call de fide teaching at the very council that called the catechism. In other words, the Church promulgated a Catechism immediately after the Council and got the most important dogma wrong (in fact taught a major heresy)…..And you’re going to tell me the Dimond’s are right and have given a good explanation to the problem to the Roman Catechism?
So, let me understand your position.
1. When you say St. Alphonsus erred, you’re right. When the Dimond Brothers say he erred, they’re wrong. Correct?
SPERAY REPLIES: HE WASN’T TEACHING A FORMAL HERESY AS YOU CLAIM WITH CATECHSIM.
2. You say St. Alphonsus is wrong for calling BOD de fide, but according to you the Council of Trent (the actual Council, not the Catechism) proclaimed BOD a dogma, however their declaration of BOD as a dogma is not de fide, but something else. Correct?
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG. I already told said that BOD is not a dogma. So you can’t simple things correct. PLEASE STOP WASTING MY TIME.
3. The Council of Trent “called the catechism”, which means that they officially mandated its promulgation and solemnized it somehow. Correct?
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope St. Pius V promulgated the catechism and you have not shown one authority that has called it heretical.
4. BOD is the “most important dogma” from the Council of Trent. Correct?
SPERAY REPLIES: NO. THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM AND SALVATION IS. And since the Catechism rejects it as you and the Dimond brothers understand it, then it got the most basic and important dogma (baptism and salvation) wrong. YOU’RE TOTALLY WASTING MY TIME BECAUSE YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE THINGS.
Another point you must consider is how the Catechsim comports to the actual teaching of the Council. In other words, can one get from Point A (Trent) to Point B (the Catechsim) in regards to “BOD.” Thus, you critique of the DImond’s position must also take into account the actual Council’s teaching as well. Here’s their position:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#Sess6chap4
But (let me guess), you’ve already refuted that too – link please.
SPERAY REPLIES: YEP, but you won’t get it because you can’t understand very simple points that I’ve made already. You’re a good member of the cult of MHFM.
SPERAY REPLIES: And yet, you can’t draw the same conclusions as Bp McKenna. Total hypocrisy! I stand by my statement. St. Alphonsus understood Trent as Trent’s own catechism explains.
Apples and Oranges.
1. St. Alphonsus – unavailable for clarification. McKenna is available.
2. St. Alphonsus – no allegation of “obstinacy.” McKenna has dug his heels in on the issue. Whatever one believes about “BOD”, one has to agree to these observations.
3. St. Alphonsus – proven sloppiness in the fact set from which he drew his conclusion. McKenna – no allegation of sloppiness in the fact set from which he draws his conclusions.
4. St. Alphonsus – proven to be in error (as you agree) about BOD as de fide. McKenna – you claim no fundamental error on his part.
5. St. Alphonsus – never challenged on this issue (as far as we know). McKenna has been challenged and has “double-downed” on it.
…..back and forth…..
But you’ve already “refuted” their argument on this – so can you provide a link to your refutation please?
SPERAY REPLIES: I refute it in one of your other comments.
Again, please refute their position in toto, not piecemeal:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#stalphonsus
SPERAY REPLIES: I’VE CLEARLY EXPLAINED THIS IN PAST POSTS, BUT YOU CAN’T GET YOUR HEAD AROUND IT. YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME.
P.S.
You would have to concede that if he had been presented with the information, St. Alphonsus would have to admit 2 major errors on his part regarding BOD and his analysis thereof. Thus, we have to presume that his admission of error on these 2 significant points would serve as a catalyst for a re-examination of the entire matter. It is unfair and uncharitable to say otherwise. Like saying:
“When shown the video evidence that he often doesn’t stop at stop signs and he often tailgates, Charlie will admit to these specific faults, but I know that this admission on his part will not lead him to admit (or even entertain the idea) that he is not a good driver.”
However, McKenna has been presented with the evidence, and he understands and assents to the fact set, but still maintains his position and conclusions. This is like saying:
“When shown the video evidence that he often doesn’t stop at stop signs and he often tailgates, Harry admitted to these specific faults, but this admission on his part did not lead him to admit (or even entertain the idea) that he is not a good driver.”
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already explained the difference between being in error and formal heresy, but you obviously can’t understand it. So I’m wasting my time with you.
….you and me back and forth…..
SPERAY REPLIES: Outside of the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins.
How can you assert this? By what exact authority?
SPERAY: Unam Sanctum, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
So let me ask you this, what happens to “Orthodox Christians” at the moment of death? Keep in mind that they have all already been validly baptized – so that takes “baptism of desire” off the table.???
SPERAY REPLIES: In the external forum, a particular Orthodox Christian who’s merely invincibly ignorant and has never intentionally gone against the Faith is in the internal forum a full member of the Catholic Church. He would be a material heretic. Again, God is the final judge in matters concerning the hearts, motives, intentions, etc. and He can save whomever He pleases.
….you said…
SPERAY REPLIES: In the external forum, a particular Orthodox Christian who’s merely invincibly ignorant and has never intentionally gone against the Faith is in the internal forum a full member of the Catholic Church. He would be a material heretic. Again, God is the final judge in matters concerning the hearts, motives, intentions, etc. and He can save whomever He pleases.
What about an “Orthodox” who rejects (in the internal forum) the Church’s teachings on divorce and “remarriage”, on the Immaculate Conception, and on the Filioque?
SPERAY REPLIES: If it doesn’t please God to save him, he will go to hell.
So according to you, even “going against the Faith in the internal forum” does not necessarily preclude one from salvation. Correct?
So, you believe it is possible that Luther, Calvin, Mohammed, and even Anton LeVay could have been saved as well, even if they clung to their beliefs to their dying breath (which all evidence clearly indicates they did). Correct?
SPERAY REPLIES: Did I not answer this in the debate concerning Christopher Hitchens? Were you not listening? Did I not say that one must have at the very least implicit desire? Are you just trying to aggravate me or something?
O.K., I “understand” your position: St. Luther, St. Calvin, St. Mohammed, St. Anton are all distinct possibilities. Sure.
SPERAY REPLIES: LOL.
By the way, please condemn the following statement as at-odds with Church teaching, in accordance with your position, since it asserts something as true that is not necessarily so (according to you):
St. Edmund Campion:
“Cut off from the Body into which alone the graces of Christ flow, you are deprived of the benefit of all prayers, sacrifices, and Sacraments. You will gain nothing except perhaps to be tortured somewhat less horribly in the everlasting fire than Judas, or Luther, or Zwingli”
SPERAY REPLIES: I have no problem with this statement at all. Even the Roman Catechism says that Luther is in hell. BOD is about possibilities, but I don’t grant the likelihood that anyone like Luther, Calvin, and especially Mohammend who didn’t even exist, was saved. Did I not say in the debate that I would most definitely say that Christopher Hitchens is in hell? Is there a remote chance God could have saved him? Perhaps, but are you willing to say that a catechumen who loved God, believed in the Church, wanted to be saved, and died unfortunately before he was baptized could not be saved by God at death despite the fact that he missed the sacrament? You’re not even willing to go there when the Roman Catechism has been teaching it for 500 years without a single condemnation by any Church authority. You don’t have to believe anyone is saved by BOD. You only have to believe God can do “IF” such a case existed.
I won’t “bother” you anymore, but I would like to understand your train of thought here. This is a sincere attempt on my part at correctly trying to understand your position – so please be patient here. Please correct the following where it is incorrect:
The Dimond Brothers are wrong since they call the Catechism wrong on BOD.
SPERAY REPLIES: The brothers are wrong not just because they reject the Catechism, but also the laws of the Church, the encyclicals, etc.
….since…
The Catechism is correct on BOD and Baptism in general because it was officially and infallibly promulgated by the Council of Trent.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Catechism is correct since it can’t promulgate a formal heresy which BOD would be if what the Dimond’s call dogmatic.
…and…
We all accept that the Council of Trent is de fide (dogmatically) correct about the Sacrament of Baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Council taught it dogmatically for sure.
…but….
BOD is inextricably intertwined in the Council’s dogmatic statement on the Sacrament of Baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: BOD is referenced at the Council.
…thus…
To deny BOD is to call the Catechism wrong, which is equivalent to calling the Council wrong on the dogma of Baptism, which is impossible since it is de fide dogma.
SPERAY REPLIES: No. It wouldn’t amount to calling the Council wrong on the dogma of baptism. To deny BOD is the call the Catechism wrong which is the equivalent to calling the Church defected for promulgating a formal heresy and implying that every pope since the council is guilty for not condemning (what the Dimond’s must call) heretical book, and those like Pope St. Pius X who actually promoting the heretical book a heretic for believing in it.
….however…..
BOD is not a dogma.
SPERAY REPLIES: Catholics must hold to some non-dogmatic teachings. Some non-dogmatic teachings are infallible, too.
….but…
When one denies BOD they are calling (by necessary implication and extension) the Council of Trent wrong on their de fide, dogmatic declaration on the the Sacrament of Baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, as I just explained how and why.
…thus….
To deny BOD is (by necessity) denying the dogmatic, de fide definition of Baptism.
SPERAY REPLIES: No as I just explained how and why? Your conclusions are based on a false premise.
…but……
BOD is not a dogma, but it is sententia fidei proxima – according to you and Ott, which is defined as (according to Ott):
“A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.”
SPERAY REPLIES: You can’t reject this level of teaching by the Church.
….but…..
To deny BOD is to (by necessity – according to you) denying the dogmatic, de fide definition of Baptism that was promulgated by Church at Trent.
SPERAY REPLIES: This is a false conclusion based on a false premise as I explained earlier.
….but…..
Ott says that “sententia fidei proxima” means it has “not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.”
.
SPERAY REPLIES: Which means “dogmatized.” That’s correct, but since it is a doctrine sententia fidei proxima you can’t reject it.
Keep in mind you have the following, verbatim (see your previous postings):
“The Catechism of Trent taught exactly opposite what the Dimond brothers call de fide teaching at the very council that called the catechism. In other words, the Church promulgated a Catechism immediately after the Council and got the most important dogma wrong (in fact taught a major heresy)…”
“They are basically calling the catechism heretical.”
“Therefore, the conclusion must be that the Catechism is heretical because it denies what they think is a dogma.”
“….but to say that something is fallible implies that the Church can promulgate a heresy against a proclaimed dogma is clearly false.”
SPERAY REPLIES: THAT’S CORRECT! I SAID IT PERFECTLY.
THANK YOU FOR NOT BOTHERING ME ANYMORE ABOUT IT!
Steven Speray got crushed in this debate. It’s embarassing. I haven’t heard this level of absurd confusion in a long time. Avoid this blind heretic at all costs.
SPERAY REPLIES: I see you are a Dimond follower. Can you explain what heresy I taught to be called a heretic?
People who believe in Invincible Ignorance assume that someone DIED ignorant.
SPERAY REPLIES: I see you don’t even understand what invincible ignorance is. Pope Pius IX taught, “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”
Based on THAT assumption, these people still hold that somehow salvation is possible for those dying in ignorance.
SPERAY REPLIES: Pope Pius IX also taught, “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.”
Steven’s diabolical argument is that people aren’t actually DYING ignorant. Such an argument actually totally denies what false tradionalists assert as the actual meaning of Invincible Ingorance.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Those who are ignorant can be enlightened and be granted final penitence at death. The point you obviously can’t understand and neither can the Dimonds.
His profound pride causes him to be willing to judge the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church as MISLEADING because the “mystery” of Baptism of Desire apparently COULD (and, does?) scoop up all of these souls at the last moment of their life despite even one shred of evidence of such conversion (and without water baptism) and THEREFORE we cannot go around preaching the DOGMA because it doesnt really mean what it says. Liar.
SPERAY REPLIES: The only liars here are Trumpetfortruth and the Dimonds. I’m giving you what the Church teaches and Dimonds give their own private nonsense that contradicts the laws and the catechisms issued by the Church.
Yes, you are openly denying the necessity of water baptism. You are denying that the matter of this sacrament is water. That’s heresy.
Speray replies: Yes, it’s a heresy, but I’m not denying anything here. You must understand the difference between necessity of precept and means. Read here.
Sure, people in ignorance can at least HOPE that God will enable them to receive the Gospel and Baptism.
Speray replies: How would you say one can hope in something they don’t know exists?
People in heresy or schism cannot even hope.
Speray replies: In heresy in the external forum may not be “in” heresy in the internal forum. Have you read moral theology and the Church approved theologians?
You take those words and twist them into an absurd notion that at the last moment of their life all of these people are just granted salvation. It’s one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard.
Speray replies: I don’t say that at all. You’re not paying attention to what I’m arguing.
And you hide behind ambiguity and claim “well, it’s possible because it’s God.” No.
Speray replies: What’s possible is that God can grant final penitence and the grace to be saved apart of Baptism as you can read here.
It’s not possible for God to lie which is what He would be doing if He revealed absolute prerequisites (like being born of water) but then contradicted himself by saying they weren’t REALLY necessary.
Speray replies: Again, they are really necessary under the usual conditions. That’s the point you seem not to understand. By the way, you’re not arguing with me but with the Church who teaches this. Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Catechism that teaches what you call heresy. Pope St. Pius X officially promulgated Baptism of Desire in his catechism as well.
It is NOWHERE taught in the Council of Trent that desire is sufficient.
Speray replies: Desire by itself is not sufficient but the Council taught in Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments (March 3, 1547):
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Fr. Michael Müller also wrote a catechism titled “Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine.” He writes:
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation.
Nope. I’m not denying the necessity of water baptism nor am I denying the matter is water. Trent was clear enough and so was its Catechism.
Artful dodge, sir. You are, in fact, denying that water is necessary. That’s what BOD does by definition. It says initial justification, which causes one to become an adopted son of God, can occur without water. It thus denies the explicit words of Jesus Christ.
Where is it taught in the Council of Trent that desire is sufficient?
No dodge, sir. You are, in fact, denying what Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Pius X taught concerning the dogma. There is a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. If you’re saying that I’m denying that baptism of water is a necessity of means, then you are correct because the Catholic Church also denies it by law and catechism.
I already told you, “Desire by itself is not sufficient but the Council taught in Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments (March 3, 1547): If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.”
Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”
The Sacred Cannons by Rev. John A. Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D. and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D. Commentary on the Code: “The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire.”
Answer this question, was Pope St. Pius X rejecting the words of Our Lord when he wrote and promulgated 18 October 1912 LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PIUS X
TO CARDINAL PETER RESPIGHI, VICAR OF ROME, WHICH IS APPROVED BY THE CATECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FOR THE DIOCESE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL PROVINCE OF ROME:
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. ?
Was Pope St. Pius V in heresy when he promulgated that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen 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.” ?