You are on page 1of 6

Joe Hargrave Some of my research on Bapitsm of Desire and Vatican II.

I take a look at certai n documents and speeches that no one else has, to my knowledge. It may be of int erest to you all. http://www.scribd.com/doc/72979977/From-BOD-to-POG From BOD to POG www.scribd.com Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Share 14 hours agoJaclyn Tillinghast Excellent work Mr. Hargrave! This piece is like finding water in the desert. 14 hours agoJoe Hargrave Hey! I'm glad you liked it Its only the beginning, really I hope to reach more people with it. Right now I'm testing it out on you all. Any thoughts or comments? 13 hours agoWill Heinze I thought this article was very easy to understand; however, I think it would be a good idea to put headings so people can understand the transition from topic to topic. I really liked how you started the article with what the Catholic Chur ch teaches on salvation and then later show how Casper, Ratzinger, and Vatican I I contradict the Church's teachings via BOD. 13 hours agoJaclyn Tillinghast There is a lot of confusion today about what the Church has really taught concer ning this issue, and also whether or not traditions held even by many saints for centuries can be wrong. I have seen that "BOD" and the "POG" are connected, but have not been able to express it in such clear and precise terms as you have. T he way you set up this article to show how BOD is incompatible with the Church's teaching, since it inevitably leads to a completely new and opposite doctrine, is like shooting out the legs of the beast first so we can witness it topple ove r and fall flat on its face. I am also a writer, and it is wonderful to read wha t you have written, knowing that it came into fruition with much effort, thoroug h investigation, and lots of revisions, but most of all care for souls and Chris t's Church. In being a fairly new convert to the Catholic faith, I am sometimes overwhelmed by the research that I must do in the midst of the crises the Church is undergoing, in order to properly defend the faith, live it, and keep it in t ruth, but it is uplifting to see there are those still fighting on Her side, and willing to spread the truth despite the opposition. I thank you for helping me on the journey. Ps. I also agree with Will on putting up headings to better dist inguish the topics and the process of their transition. 13 hours agoJoe Hargrave That is easier said than done However, I think you all may have a point, and I will see what I can do. 9 hours agoNiki McGinnis I have to be honest with you, Joe, since you asked. I'm praying for you guys. I just don't see the obsession with all of this. There are a million other better things you could be doing to promote the faith. You are a very smart man, obviou sly. But this subject needs to be left to the Church authority. As long as we do n't have a pope to define this, there is no point in explaining what you think t o people. I don't think it is your place. I think you may be in danger of "reaso ning" yourself right out of the faith one day. I've seen people go in the direct ion you are before and it doesn't seem to end well. I only say this as your Chri

stian sister because I love you guys. I hope you don't take it personally. I wis h you would focus on sedevacantism and do some good for the Church that way. 8 hours agoHelen Westover What about Trent? Does it actually support BOD? I run into this with Trads all t he time, Joe. 6 hours agoAdrian Gulliory To be quite honest, this is the most well-written research on BOD I've read thus far. I'll agree with Niki that we should focus more on evangelizing fellow lay Catholics and non-Catholics who are not aware of the crisis as we are. Nonethele ss, we have much work to do. Excellent article, and thanks for the tag! 4 hours agoJoe Hargrave Niki, If I don't go the direction I am going, it is guaranteed to not end well, becaus e the point I was at was a faith that made grandiose claims to never contradict itself, blatantly contradicting itself. I have sought far and wide for an unders tanding that would resolve the contradiction, and I found it. And, there is no church authority. That goes out the window for all sedes, and t he CMRI/St. Gertrudes clerics know it, and don't claim otherwise. 4 hours agoJoe Hargrave This is not some intellectual obsession. This is the reason why these sedes actu ally don't do that much good for the Church. They don't believe in her absolute necessity. They believe in BOD and invincible ignorance. They believe people can be saved in any religion. They will of course deny that when you state it forma lly. But ask any of them if a Jew who rejects Christ can be saved. I asked a CMRI pri est about praying for dead non-Catholics. He gave me a lecture about how it does n't matter if they were Catholic or not, as long as they followed their conscien ces. If THAT is Catholicism, there is no reason to leave the Novus Ordo and reje ct communion with the billion people worldwide who call themselves Catholics and belong to the Vatican II church. 2 hours agoShaunna Hargrave I see BOD as the root for all of the modernist errors and their eventually flowe ring into Vatican II. The V2 antipopes base their new theology on the precedents began with BOD. I evangelize precisely by going back to the root with BOD. about an hour agoNiki McGinnis I think you are misunderstanding it all, Joe. Non-Catholics can be saved, but on ly through the Catholic Church. It is the exception, certainly not the rule! It' s like you are taking a small thing and blowing it was out of proportion. Why ar e you questioning these priests when what they are saying makes perfect sense ac cording to Holy Mother Church? I cannot stand people insulting our clergy when t hey are the last gems that we have, not to mention the sinful element of it. Thi s is what leads to all the splinters among Catholics. Obedience must be the most difficult thing for all of us. You seem to not want to make any allowances for the fact that you may be wrong. I hope I am wrong. I hope that if a true pope ca me along and put an end to this debate, you would abide by it. We should always think ourselves fools in the eyes of God. I do not want to debate with you. If i t is a question of intellect, I am obviously going to lose, haha! And I see wha t both you and Shaunna are saying, but I don't think that is the reason for V2. From what the clergy have told me, it seems a lack of catechism knowledge allowe d V2 to flourish. I just want to stick to the faith, allow God to do as He sees fit. He knows who He saves and by what means. We need to abide by His Laws, do t

he best we can to save our souls and the souls of others. By stressing the BOD d ebate, it seems to just be alienating more people and giving them more reason to say "See, you can't even agree amongst yourselves!" It doesn't bring people to faith, it just seems to prove why they shouldn't bother. God bless you. I truly love you guys, but I cannot follow this road you are going down. And I will not listen to people insult the heroes (our clergy) that have sacrificed everything to offer us the sacraments. about an hour agoShaunna Hargrave JP2 and B16 specifically believe that non-Catholics are saved by the Catholic Ch urch, too. It is a misrepresentation that they believe that the people are saved by virtue of their wrong religions. They take great pains to define theological concepts to show how it is actually the Logos and the Church as being the thing that does the saving of the people outside the Church. I don't see where the insults of the clergy are? Stating they don't have jurisdi ction is an insult? about an hour agoJoe Hargrave Niki, " Non-Catholics can be saved, but only through the Catholic Church. It is the ex ception, certainly not the rule!" This is completely false. Council of Florence, Cantate Domino: "[The Church] believes, professes, and proc laims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but als o Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his an gels [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Chri stian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he ha s practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unl ess he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." That is only one of dozens of Papal statements affirming that all who die as non -Catholics will be lost. Here is another. "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wise st Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess fals e teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the pro phet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divi ne faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we m ust be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Chur ch." -- Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum There are no "exceptions" to the dogma. Not in Scripture, not in Tradition, and not in the Magisterium. " It's like you are taking a small thing and blowing it was out of proportion." It isn't a small thing. It is at the root of the Great Apostasy. If you don't se e it, you don't see it. I'll pray for God to enlighten you.

" Why are you questioning these priests when what they are saying makes perfect sense according to Holy Mother Church?" You assume that it does. And on what basis? I know what the Church has said and taught. I've taken the time to study and learn my faith. And what I have shown i s that what these priests are saying "makes perfect sense" according to Joseph R atzinger, but not according to the councils of the Church and the encyclicals of past popes. I am questioning them because what they are saying does NOT make sense. " I cannot stand people insulting our clergy when they are the last gems that we have, not to mention the sinful element of it." I am not insulting anyone, and it is really dishonest for you to even imply that I am. I asked the CMRI priest a legitimate theological question, and he gave me his answer. How is that an insult? "You seem to not want to make any allowances for the fact that you may be wrong. " I am so sick and tired of this ridiculous and baseless accusation from CMRI-type s. No, you're right, I',m not willing to admit that I am wrong when the only thing you have to offer is "you should be obedient" - obedient to men who ADMIT in the ir own publications that they have absolutely no authority or jurisdiction, and that laypeople are going to have to make up their own minds. I would be willing to admit I was wrong if you took the time to find some eviden ce to demonstrate that I actually WAS wrong. I won't hold my breath. " I hope that if a true pope came along and put an end to this debate, you would abide by it." I don't think there will be a true pope. Who would be his flock? A mass of peopl e who don't even believe the Church is necessary for salvation? What would be th e point? If that's what you believe, you have a pope - his name is Joseph Ratzin ger. " I just want to stick to the faith, allow God to do as He sees fit. He knows wh o He saves and by what means." Sticking by the faith means actually having it. Having it means believing the wo rds out of the mouth of Christ: unless a man is born again of water and the Spir it, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Those who believe and are baptized wi ll be saved; those who do not believe will be condemned. And so on and so forth. If you can't even believe God when he says that those who are not baptized will not be saved, then what is the point of the rest of it? You are way too personally attached to these priests. You know, there are Mormon s who go around the world, into disease and war infested jungles to bring the Mo rmon message. They sure do sacrifice a lot, as much as any traditional priest. B ut that doesn't mean that their faith is true, and it doesn't put them beyond cr iticism. God demands everything. You can toil your entire life for this or that cause, but if you don't believe, what will it profit you? about an hour agoJamie Bergamasco You make good points as usual, Joe. Still, as I believe I have brought up to you before, what are we to make of Pope Pius XII's address to the Italian midwives

in 1951? You must either consider Pope Pius XII to be a material heretic who tha nkfully was only speaking in a fallible capacity or you must accept Baptism of D esire as orthodox Catholic teaching: "Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death wi thout it salvation and supernatural happiness the beatific vision of God are impossi ble. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open." Also, the issue of traditionalist clergy not being able to bind your conscience on this matter is problematic. This is just as important as any other dogma. Fat her needs to be able to tell me that what I believe is heresy and, if it is here sy, that I must abjure and repent of my heretical position if I am to be saved. If I confess to him that I believe that Water Baptism is absolutely necessary fo r salvation, in other words, I tell him that I am a Feeneyite in the strict sens e of Fr. Feeney and not like the modernist group that calls themselves Feeneyite s but really are not, he needs to be able to bind my conscience one way or the o ther. He needs to be able to tell me if what I believe is heresy or not since he is acting as a vicar of Christ in the confessional and if his station in life i s worth anything he must know what the Church teaches on every single matter. 58 minutes agoJamie Bergamasco In addition, as I believe I've said before, as well, I do believe BOD and BOB ar e concomitant since in order for BOB to be efficacious you'd have to obviously d esire Water Baptism. I really do want to accept BOD but not in a metaphorical se nse. My Haydock Bible commentary tells me that by Christ's inclusion of Water in John 3:5 that a metaphorical baptism is impossible. With that said, this is all why for me to accept BOD and square it with Pius XII's address to the Italian m idwives where he specifically says that an "act of love" can supply the lack of baptism (which given the context he's obviously implying that an "act of love" c an supply for a Water Baptism) in an adult I want to say that if this occurs tha t the individual's Guardian Angel or Our Lady herself performs the Water Baptism at or near the moment of death possibly in a mystical manner that is not visibl e to the human eye similar to how the Fatima children received the Eucharist in a manner that was invisible to the human eye. 53 minutes agoJamie Bergamasco Of course, you also have the Saints raising men from the dead in some cases spec ifically to baptize individuals who desired Water Baptism as catechumens. That i s why ultimately it becomes a slippery slope to accept BOD in the modern sense ( i.e., salvation for anybody of any religion who followed the Natural Law to the best of their ability and/or salvation for the 'invincibly ignorant') considerin g we have example after example of God performing the most extraordinary miracle s to make sure individuals are Water Baptized who indeed by an act of their Free Will desired it. 35 minutes agoHelen Westover Joe - Trent? 25 minutes agoJoe Hargrave Well Jamie, you can say what you like - I think the possibility of angelic bapti sm is perfectly acceptable - but the fact of the matter is that all of the BOD a dvocates are specifically talking about people who do not get baptized at all. T hey never make these special circumstances. It is all a flat out denial of Jn. 3 :5, and I can't see it any other way. Augustine should have never speculated on it. He corrected himself, but everyone latched on to his initial speculation, an d it is all been downhill from there. 23 minutes agoJamie Bergamasco

That didn't latch on until the Renaissance period though, correct? Before that, and all throughout the Middle Ages, nobody would have ever maintained a notion o f BOD/BOB being "other" means of the doorway into the Church and ergo eternal sa lvation, correct? 17 minutes agoJoe Hargrave Unfortunately no. In the middle ages there were theologians who believed that BO D could save you. They believed it because they believed that Augustine and Ambr ose had taught it. 10 minutes agoJohn Moylan St. Augustine should have never speculated on it. Simple is best! What must we d o to be saved? Believe in the Gospel, repent and be baptized ! Look at" wonder i f" has gotten us: You do not have to believe in the gospel, just follow you cons cience, and you are saved without being Baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 7 minutes agoJoe Hargrave Helen, I do not believe that Trent teaches BOD. The passage in question has a much more plausible meaning - that a person must desire baptism in order to be justified. In other words, you can't just have a baptism; you have to believe in what the baptism does. So you can't be justified without baptism or the desire for it.

You might also like