response to anonymous comment about No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

Anonymous comment in red
My responses in black

First of all this is going to be quite a lengthy response. This person besides being of extreme bad will is also very much full of hate for me and for anyone who stands up for the Dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said: "Actually, its YOU who is the blasphemer. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood."
The Church has never taught BOD or BOB.

Anonymous said: "This has nothing to do with the fact that there is no salvation outside the church. You are like the protestants who privately interpret the Bible -- you privately interpret the teachings of the Church, without reading them in the mind of the Church."
It has everything to do with the No Salvation Dogma. If one can be saved by either one of these heretical theories then they would obviously be outside the Church. That is the whole point of these theories. If you didn't know this then you probably don't believe the Church Dogma that the only way into the Church is through the Sacrament of Baptism.(Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “...the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”)

Anonymous said: “You dare to deny the sacred tradition of the Church that Saint Emerentiana, among many others, was baptised by her own blood. This is present in the traditional Breviary and has been commemorated for 1800 years:”
Let me make a few points that totally blow this theory away and refute your argument.
The answer to this is that the Catholic Church has never recognized that there are saints in heaven who were not baptized.
Not all of the information surrounding the deaths of martyrs is accurate. For instance, “According to St. Ambrose, Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. Others had said she [St. Agnes] was burned to death. Not all of the information given in the martyrdom narrative is necessarily accurate, consistent, or complete.”
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise.”
In his work The Age of Martyrs, the renowned Church historian Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti says: “For guides we have appropriate documents. These, however, as we have already seen, are often uncertain and would lead us completely astray. Especially unreliable are the Acts or Passions of martyrs.”
One could point out that the account of her martyrdom (St. Emerentiana) provides a situation that, in itself, suggests she was already baptized; for she wouldn’t have endangered herself in that fashion during the persecution had she not been baptized.
If she wasn’t baptized before she was attacked (which is highly unlikely), she certainly could have been baptized after the attack by her mother who accompanied her (according to accounts) to the tomb to pray.
The Roman Breviary is not infallible.

Anonymous said: “The 1917 Code of Canon Law, containing the laws TO BE OBEYED by the Catholic Church, says:
Unbaptised persons may not receive ecclesiastical burial, with the exception of catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism, and are therefore to be regarded as among those baptised. Canon (1239)”
Let me also make a few points that totally refute what you say about the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.” It is not binding on the whole Church.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.’’
As the Council of Trent teaches that it would not be impossible for some who really wants Baptism and membership into the Church to receive it. God always provides to those who are of Good will. ---Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…’”

Anonymous said: “The commentaries in the CHURCH APPROVED 1582 Douay Rheims New Testament also teach Baptism of Desire and Blood, as the Church has always:
"Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it." "
The Bible was approved by the Church not the Commentaries. The people who offered their commentary were not infallible, although I’m sure they might have been holy, they were not infallible and were susceptible to error.

Anonymous said: “This does not at all contradict Cantate Domino of Eugene, which you heretics privately interpret. Cantate Domino, as intepreted by the CHURCH, not some two "monks" in a pretend monastery, is speaking of Protestants and other heretics, who believe they shed blood in the name of Christ, but are not saved.”
These quotes that you have brought forth have definitely contradicted what Cantate Domino has stated. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life... and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
As you can see that the Teaching is inclusive of everyone who is not in the Catholic Church. There are Jews, heretics (e.g. Protestants), schismatics (e.g. orthodox) and PAGANS (i.e. everyone else not in the three previous groups, e.g. Muslims, Hindus, all not official members of the Church through Sacramental Baptism, including catechumens).

Anonymous said: “You people also introduce the biggest innovation, never seen in the history of the Church: you say there are "errors" in the Summa of St. Thomas. For centuries, the clergy has been instructed in St. Thomas. Every Pope, Bishop, and priest before Vatican II accepted all the doctrine contained in it. Were they all heretics, as you foolishly imply? Pope Urban V said: "We command you to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas as the Catholic doctrine, and study to embrace it with all your power." ”
St. Thomas Aquinas, despite all of his fabulous writing and learning about the Catholic Faith, being a fallible human being, was wrong on many points, including his explicit statement in the Summa Theologica that “The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.” Do you think that Pope Urban V wants us to deny the Immaculate Conception Dogma as St. Thomas erred in. He definitely would have believed in the Catholic teaching had he been aware of it.
One scholar noted that the book St. Thomas was writing when he died was called The Compendium of Theology, in which are found at least nine explicit errors. In fact, “over thirty years ago, Dr. Andre Daignes, Professor of Philosophy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, pointed out twenty-four formal errors in the Summa of St. Thomas.” This simply shows again that the theological speculations of even our greatest sainted theologians are just that – fallible speculations. Only St. Peter and his successors, the popes, when speaking from the Chair of Peter, have the unfailing faith.

Anonymous said: “St. Thomas, and the entire Church, taught Baptism of blood and desire, at all times.”
This is a BOLD FACED LIE! I feel sorry that the people that you listen to have lied to you and you believed them and are now going about spouting their lies.
First St. Thomas’ teaching is condemned by Trent. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated above, a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two [baptism of desire and blood], however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.” Notice St. Thomas says that BOD and BOB are NOT sacraments but give the same Baptismal effect without receiving the actual sacrament, meaning we do not need the actual water Sacrament.
Now we will see what Trent says about this. Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Not one Official Church Council or Infallible Decree by a Pope has ever taught this heresy. It could not since the Church is without error. The Fathers, Saints and Doctors were by far not unanimous and in fact there are very few who speculated that BOD and BOB are possible.

Anonymous said: “Instead of humbly accepting the doctrines of the Church, you, like Luther, rebel, and set up a false "church," following some "brothers" who have no authority in these matters, and who have absolutely NO training in the theological sciences. Their "theology" essentially consists of taking quotes from Councils, Saints, Doctors, Popes, and privately interpreting them, just like Protestants take quotes from the Bible.”
It is you who has been brainwashed by the evil Vatican II sect proclaiming to be Catholic yet publicly denying the Dogmas of the Church.
As far as privately interpreting Dogmas your assertion is ridiculous. Dogmas are not interpretations, but Revealed Truths from Heaven. “Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.- Condemned”
Dogmas are to be believed as they are declared and no other way. Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” We cannot keep on interpreting Dogmas or it would never stop. If the Dogma say that there is No Salvation Outside the Church then we are to believe that nobody outside the Church can be saved.

Anonymous said: “And then, another innovation - you heretics say that everything to be believed by Catholics must have an infallible statement to back it up. What baloney! His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, defined the Dogma of the Assumption in only the 1950s; up to that point it had never been "infallibly defined." But nevertheless, it would've been heresy to deny it before it was defined. Again, just like Protestants, who say everything to be believed must be in the Bible, you people say everything to be believed must be backed up with an infallible statment.”
Not true again. If a teaching is a Dogma a Catholic cannot believe contrary. To obstinately deny a Dogma is heresy.

Anonymous said: “Also, all theologians before Vatican II even declared it heretical to deny baptism of blood and desire.”
A lie. Even St. Augustine who erroneously thought that one can be saved by a desire for Baptism contradicted himself and stated the opposite on other occasions. St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
Just one Saint who was on both sides of the issue proves your argument a LIE, let alone most the others who totally rejected and specifically taught against it.

Anonymous said: “In fact, Baptism of Desire is backed up with an infallible statment. The Council of Trent:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our saviour; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
But no, you won't even accept what the Council of Trent said. Instead of simply accepting the Church's interpretation of Trent, what the Dimond "brothers" do is talk to a non-Catholic Oxford woman "scholar" to ask for her intepretation of a CHURCH COUNCIL!!!”
I have a lengthy article on this in my Baptism of Desire section on my blog. If you consult this you will find your argument refuted.

Anonymous said: “Have fun rotting in hell!”
Wow!! This is not the most charitable thing I have ever heard. It is not surprising however, given the bad will of people like you.

Anonymous said:“This is why Fr. Feeney and his heretic followers were excommunicated. Most "holy" family "monastery" does all in their power to descredit the Church's excommunication of Feeney by the Holy Office. Meanwhile, they forget the fact that the excommunication was signed by CARDINAL OTTAVIANI!”
Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for this. It was for not going to Rome when summoned. This was because he was illegally summoned by the authorities there, by not giving the reason he was summoned for.
You might be surprised to know that Fr. Feeney’s excommunication was lifted and he was allowed to join the Church again without having to relinquish his belief in the No Salvation Dogma.
If you are implying that Cardinal Ottaviani was a pillar of the Catholic Faith you are wrong. Although he correctly spoke out about the evils of the diabolical Novus Ordo “mass”, he was still a heretic who denied the No Salvation Dogma and followed all the other heretics who ushered in the new anti-Catholic Vatican II church.

Anonymous said: “If we can't even trust these documents coming from the Church, as the Dimond's assert, then what is the point of even having a church, we might as well just ask the Dimonds for the answer to everything!”
We can trust the infallible Dogmas of the Church but we must be vigilant of errors that seep there way into the minds and teachings of fallible men.
The Dimonds are not infallible and are not popes, they only reiterate the infallible teachings of the Church for those of Good will to find and follow in order to have a chance to get to heaven.

Anonymous said: “All hail 'Pope Dimond' These pompous fools even go so far as to attribute prophecies to themselves!”
I have never heard them attribute prophecies to themselves but then again you haven’t been right about anything else in your writing.