Challenge Initiated.

Points to be made.

1. The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, both by a necessity of precept, and a necessity of means.

2. But as sanctifying grace can be had from other sacraments without the actual reception of the sacrament (although not the SACRAMENTAL grace specific to each sacrament), so too can we receive sanctifying grace through baptism without the actual immersion in water.

3. This sanctifying grace which indwells a man without conveying the sacramental character of baptism, is sufficient to pass from a state of condemnation to justification. And, therefore, should a man so justified die before committing any serious sin, he will undoubtedly attain to Heaven, though perhaps having to pass through the fires of Purgatory first.

Exclusions.

1. What is not being asserted is that Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is absolutely necessary. What is argued is the mode of participation can vary due to extremity of circuмstance. It is therefore vain to imagine that I argue against the Necessity of baptism.

2. The acceptable sources of evidence are:

a. The fathers.
b. The saints in General.
c. Canon Law.
d. The teaching of theologians in good standing with the Church.
e. Papal teaching in any particular format.
f. All magisterial teaching.

Excluded sources are:

Non-Catholic sources.
Private revelation.
Martyrologies.
Lives of the saints.

The lives of the saints and private revelation are excluded, as the discussion is to be theological and framed in the context of theology.

3. I positively exclude ad hominems.

4. I exclude involvement in this conversation by ANYONE ELSE besides Stubborn and I. Anyone can feel free to PM him to cheer him on, or to give him info. But I prefer a one-on-one for clarity and brevity.

5. I positively exclude excessively long posts. Each Post should amount to no more than perhaps three pages. The points to be made should be emphasized for convenience.

6. I positively exclude any backbiting or vulgarity.

7. I exclude all fallacies, and will point them out as soon as noticed.

8. I exclude interminable nitpicking. The general principle should be to see the substance of what is argued, and if clarification of terms is needed, it is to be granted no more than twice per post in question. If a third attempt at clarification/ redefinition is made, then the debate is terminated, no winner is declared.

9. If a period of one week elapses with no response, the victory is to be conceded to the one who made the last point demanding the response.

10. If one requires someone else to argue for them by proxy, this is acceptable, so long as the argument remains on a one-to-one basis, and not on a many-to-many basis.

These are the conditions-

Signed,

Gregory I

Stubborn, reproduce a quote of these conditions with your name at the bottom of the quote, next to Mine to affirm your acceptance.

The first argument will go to you. This is Chess, You be White, I'll be black.

I don't really care who wins this debate HOWEVER I'm very interested in a fair debate

Are the questions in any way not fair?

Yes they are and I'll show quickly.

The questions (the debate itself) assumes the following from a to f, so 6 propositions which the OP assumes are "true".

a. The fathers.
b. The saints in General.
c. Canon Law.
d. The teaching of theologians in good standing with the Church.
e. Papal teaching in any particular format.
f. All magisterial teaching.

a. The Fathers; most of them rejected Baptism of Desire. Really, you'll have to count it and St. Augustine does not count because he rejected later in his life even though he considered something that is similar to what we see in St Tomas Aquinas. So excluding St Augustine is not only fair but mandatory

b. The Saints in general... so most of them (50%+1% ?) or those who wrote theological speculations about the methods of regeneration and salvation?
Still Saint's works to prove a dogma is not a good idea; Church teaching is the only source of dogma.

c. Canon Law is administrative and not on morals and dogmas. It should be erased from the hall of arguments "pro" Baptism of Desire even if you consider Canon Law infallible because it says NOTHING about Baptism of Desire, it only says about FUNERALS.

d. Here is the trick: use wrongly Saints propositions and then use another 25 theologians in good standing with the Church.  How many Saints held Baptism of Desire as a sacramental/substitute to Baptism of Water? Those theologians in good standing with the Church are in good standing with Baptism of Desire being a substitute of Baptism of Water or they consider that there're three Baptisms?
If they consider there're more than one Baptism, the Church teach teaches that there is only ONE Baptism, then the Saints or theologians who consider otherwise can't be used as examples of Baptism of Desire.

You'd have to open a new thread about "How Many Baptism Exists?" before going further on this discussion

e. Best guess Pius IX will be used as an example of BOD. If we consider Pius IX teaches Baptism of Desire (which he does not) but even if we consider for the sake of argument, then The Pope teaching not ex-cathedra should be considered as valuable as Council of Trent (= Baptism of Water ONLY) or as an exception? Who can make exceptions about Baptism ? Who decides the theologians who makes exceptions to Sacraments?
The Church gave the authority to exceptions of Sacraments that are teach in Councils?

f. considering all theological teaching as part of the Universal Magisterium is questionable and it's wrong in my opinion but to be fair, one have to consider all questions/propositions from a to e, specially affirmation e. should be answered before any debate  due to possible consequence of question f. being a mere rhetorical consideration.
(f. is only affirming what is already "assumed as truth" in a,b,c,d,e.)

These are not conditions, these are legitimate sources from which to draw whichever argument stubborn wants to make. The argument is a theological one, and ought to be made fairly and in a theological way. He can establish any argument he likes to make, and he can go first with either a simple syllogism or with a lengthy treatise, given it is less than three pages, approximately.

These are my conditions for a fair treatment of the subject. I am not saying that he has to establish the argument meeting all those sources as criteria, I am saying they are the sources from which we will pull our arguments.

Those are my conditions.

I asked BODers to start a thread to defend the necessity of a sacrament, any sacrament at all. McCork said he was up for the challenge, but just not yet. I would think any and every Catholic would jump to start such a thread without hesitation!  - I say he'll *never* be up for it, and every day that goes by just keeps proving me *still* right and him *still* wrong. And yes, I am trying my best to bait any BODer into this thing SO I CAN BE PROVEN WRONG. But the nitwits just keep proving me right.

I "hesitate" to engage you while you are so busy talking to others. That's efficiency. Haste makes waste. You need all the concentration you can get.

These are my terms Stubborn take them or leave them.

I will leave them, maybe argue about a BOD some more later.

Meanwhile, chalk up yet another BODer who proves me to be still correct. +2 years and counting.

I've constantly challenged BoDers to change their heretical rhetoric, but they absolutely refuse to do so.

Trent teaches that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation and that Baptism in particular is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means.

Consequently, the theologians after Trent always spoke about BoD as involving the reception of Baptism in voto rather than as a mechanism for justification WITHOUT Baptism.  To state over and over ad nauseam, as the Cushingites do, that justification and salvation are possible WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely slam-dunk heretical.  While most Cushingites would have you believe that Trent's major point of emphasis about the Sacraments is to teach BoD, it's absolutely the other way around.  Trent meant to define dogmatically the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation against the Prot heresies of the day which denied that.

Trent teaches that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE Of justification.  Some of the BoD theologians just felt that the instrumentality of the Sacrament could operate via the votum.  I disagree.  But none of them believed that the Sacrament was not necessary for salvation.

Well said Ladislaus, now where you disagree, "some BoD theologians just felt that the instrumentality of the Sacrament could operate via votum", I would agree.

Now granted the person has Catholic faith, perfect charity, explicit will to join the Church, explicit desire to receive the Sacrament, and is dying asking for water without any contempt for the Sacrament and it is just impossible to receive it, I would believe 100% that God would repute them to the Sacrament.

Now with that said, if you were to ask me has God reputed anyone to the Sacrament with the above conditions? I would answer, He could but He hasn't.

In like manner, if you were to ask me will God release all of the damned souls from hell at the end of the world? He could but He won't.

2. But as sanctifying grace can be had from other sacraments without the actual reception of the sacrament (although not the SACRAMENTAL grace specific to each sacrament), so too can we receive sanctifying grace through baptism without the actual immersion in water.

Sacramental Baptism (water & word) actually contains and causes the grace it signifies, it is not only a mere "outward sign" of such grace. The grace cannot be apart from the Sacrament, as the liberal EENS deniers pretend: they want to reduce the Sacraments instituted by Christ and dispensed visibly by the Roman Catholic Church to nothing more than the ordinary, more "effective" ways to receive the same graces that could be granted without the actual sacrament, they say.

The Magisterium of the Church teaches:

There are seven sacraments of the New Law: namely, Baptism...these sacraments CONTAIN grace and confer it upon those who receive them worthily.

Canon 6: If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not CONTAIN the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace, as though they were only outward signs of grace  or justice, received through faith: let him be anathema

Canon 8: If anyone shall say that by said Sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked  (ex opera operato), but that faith alone in the divine promises suffice to obtain grace: let him be anathema.

Also, there is an ex-cathedra statement made by Pope Leo XIII in the Bull Apostolicae Curae issued in 1896 which says:

"It is well known that the Sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify.