Now I realise that BoD/BoB is based in 100% human respect and no love for God. Another great apologetic work from MHFM!

Tough to talk to so-called traditionalists about this.  They throw the “Feeneyite” argument at me and think it ends the discussion.

On meditating on the absurdity and inconsistency of 'baptism' of desire and blood, I had a thought. The sedevacantist priests such as the CMRI claim to reject the new mass as invalid since as Pope Eugene had taught, it does bit meet the requirement of form and in most cases minister. Matter, form, and minister must be present for the sacrament to be confected. Sadly, They are to blind by bad will to see their inconsistency. '

Baptism' of desire does not have the correct form, (by not using the words "I baptize you in the name of the..."), matter (by rejecting the use of water), and minister by asserting that one can baptize themselves without the use of anyone else, which to my knowledge is not allowed by the Church. If those heretics accept Baptism of desire despite this video and the above points, then in order to be consistent they should not condemn the new mass whatsoever. By I doubt they will understand since they are so caught up in pomp and externals.

The worst things are said about the Church by the demonic who clearly hate the Church so much that they attack "The Way" into the Church (Baptism). I can currently read in confused "catholic" forums that MHFM is uncharitable for trying to save those who would hear false doctrine like the reprehensible BoD, but +Jesus Himself mentioned "the days of Noe", where it seems reasonable that more than 8 humans desired to book passage on Noe's Ark, but unfortunately, their desires (if any) came after God had sealed up the Ark with the 8 people in it. Hypothetical desirous don't get INTO the Ark. They perish.

Thank you for your important works in this day of rampant false teachers.

I also noticed that the picture at 1:19 beautifully portrays the words of Pope Leo the Great: "...the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."

One of the most common objections I hear when I tell people the truth on the necessity of water baptism is "God isn't bound by the Sacraments, He can save whoever He wants."

If this were true, then how do we know men don't become priests by their own desire? Or get married "by desire" without actually receiving the sacrament of Matrimony?

Isn't that what people who are fornicating and shacking up say? "We're basically married, we just haven't gone through the ceremony yet. We're just as committed as anyone who has had the ceremony." Why doesn't their "commitment" and "desire for marriage" constitute real marriage?

And if "God isn't bound by the Sacraments" and can do whatever He wants, how could we know that God wasn't making them married simply by their desire? Or making men priests by desire?

It's such an absurd statement, and it shows that they don't believe that God has actually revealed who is saved and HOW they are saved. It's all just a big mystery for BOD advocates which allows them to affirm and deny anything they wish about Catholic teaching.

I posted this on my facebook page and lost about 5 "friends" ha ha.  They called me names and each gave a different explanation (just like you said in one of your debates) when I even provided the Catechism for them to read, it is not a sacrament! It shouldn't even be taught.  This is a great video and teaching tool.  

This excellent explanation is a glorious work for Christ the Lord.

I believe ( but willing to be corrected if wrong ) that water Baptism is the ONLY way to be justified that when Our Lord says " Amen, amen I say " is actually reaffirming in a sense that Our Lord " has two more witnesses " , the Father and the Holy Ghost ....so is like "Amen, Amen, I say"....is the Three Divine Persons saying .....

Just an inspiration.

BOD is Heresy !!!

Outstanding video brothers.  Thank you for refuting the heresy of Baptism Of Desire, once and for all.  God bless.

Well said. Can't dispute these points. To anyone with sound reason, these teachings of the Church make clear sense and to go against them would show one's lack of faith in the Church's teachings.
I've always appreciated the proper translations the MHFM makes of the Latin and was wondering, what would you recommend being the best way to learn latin?  I've learned how to pray the entire rosary in latin and know the importance of knowing the original Latin and Greek which I wish to learn

You're absolutely correct, EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS is the Teaching of the Church. Also, that's the reason why for centuries a lot of Princes would delay getting Baptized until the very last moment.  Because they would go RIGHT to heaven. They say that the Roman Emperor Constantine did exactly that. I would be terrified to make that gamble.

Excellent video, very well explained, BOD supporters have been brainwashed

Perfect work, thanks God, Holy Mary, All the Church. No doubt about it. Thank You MHFM!

Superb.

Bro.peter i was born 1971 i was baptize and my 2daughters..my question my baptism is valid? i ask my common husband to baptize me if not valid.please pray for my whole family for convertion.

What is ipso facto

St. Thomas Aquinas, Church Doctor, disagrees with the Dimond brothers on Baptism of Desire and Blood (Summa Theologiae, III Q68 A2).

What of infant baptism? I was baptised at 9 months old, but is that a true baptism, since I chose it not and made not the choice?
It was in a presumably normal Catholic Church around 1998

20:00 Your best refutation is nonsense.
The council of Trent did not say that "one cannot be put into a state of grace without rebirth", It was more literally saying "men are guilty of original sin, and will go to hell for this crime, unless it is forgiven through Christ's passion."


This only implies what you say if you take it in an idiotic legalistic sense and throw authors intent out the window. It clearly did not say that original sin could not be forgiven through some other means - and one should not expect when stating a law, that one will always state every last detail and exception to the law. For example, I recall seeing that the church stated that every person is born with original sin - but didn't bother to include in this statement that Mary was exempt from this; this is because one cannot be expected to always state every exception to a law, when stating a law.


It's pretty obvious that this passage originally had nothing to do with the subject of whether nor not a state of grace is achievable through some other means than Christ's passion, but was a mundane teaching on original sin.