Quote from: bowler

Quote from: saintbosco13

Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

If that decree taught baptism of desire, then baptism of desire would be dogma.

That decree is talking about  a living person. It says nothing about a person who dies that way. Moreover, it clearly says "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Nothing clear in the Fathers about BOD, and absolutely nothing in dogma.

Stick with your 20th century catechisms, and specially the CCC and you've got all of the proof YOU need for your Implicit faith canard.

Those that have eyes to see, let them see.

Bowler, why then does St. Alphonsus Ligouri, a Doctor of the Church, state:

"Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres-bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent"?

Is he a heretic for saying this? He and other Church sources openly state the Council of Trent taught baptism of desire, so you hit it right on the head in your 1st sentence.

You're a broken record, you just keep repeating the same errors. All I'm doing is writing gain what I or someone else told you, and you keep ignoring.

What's it matter to you what St. Alphonsus Ligouri says? You do not believe that ANY desire to be baptized, or a Catholic or belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: bowler

Dear InfiniteFaith,

You didn't respond to this question:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

“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 (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [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 were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 46).

What is this reason that he is talking about. This is totally subjective.

All true salvific reason comes from the Holy Ghost, it is called actual grace, and sanctifying grace. And if anyone listens to this voice of reason, they will go get baptized and become Catholics.

When Christ says "I am the way the truth [logos] and the light". He is referring to that particular verse. If you start questioning some of the teachings of the earliest apostles then that pretty much puts all of their teachings into question.

So far you posted one person making a quote that can be interpreted in many ways. Implicit faith has no foundation in the Fathers whatsoever. The Athanasian Creed is from the Fathers. As a matter of fact implicit faith has no foundation in any Saint or anyone till like 1600 years after Christ.

Fr. William Jurgens: “… we must stress that a particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which
is itself a vehicle of revelation.”
 

Actually I posted 2 quotes from Early Church Fathers that hint at the existence of Baptism of Desire and Implied Baptism of Desire. You say that these quotes can be interpreted in many different ways. Please show me other ways that they can be interpreted. Maybe then I will see your point. .

You posted one quote about baptism of Blood, which I did not quote because I'm strictly focusing on the second quote. To continue on the second quote:

The quote can be interpreted in any way that a person wants to interpret what "reason" is. I already showed you (on my second posting of this thread) how I as a Catholic interpreted it (see bold):

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

“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 (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [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 were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 46).

What is this reason that he is talking about. This is totally subjective.

All true salvific reason comes from the Holy Ghost, it is called actual grace, and sanctifying grace. And if anyone listens to this voice of reason, they will go get baptized and become Catholics.

You quote Fr. Jurgens on this but that could only be an opinion. What he says is not necessarily infallible either

I posted also the Athanasian creed, it is infallible, and it says that the person to be saved must:

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Here are some more quotes for you about using an odd saint quote as dogma:

St. Vincent de Lerins taught this:
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecuмenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike." (The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434)

The Fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and this is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a Father of the Church or a handful of Fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the popes; and a Catholic accents to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica , June 26, 1749: “The
Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned
for his holiness and teaching.”

Errors of the Jansenists, : “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.” Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII


Pope Pius XII, Humani generis , Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church".

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: bowler

Dear InfiniteFaith,

You didn't respond to this question:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

“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 (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [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 were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 46).

What is this reason that he is talking about. This is totally subjective.

All true salvific reason comes from the Holy Ghost, it is called actual grace, and sanctifying grace. And if anyone listens to this voice of reason, they will go get baptized and become Catholics.

When Christ says "I am the way the truth [logos] and the light". He is referring to that particular verse. If you start questioning some of the teachings of the earliest apostles then that pretty much puts all of their teachings into question.

So far you posted one person making a quote that can be interpreted in many ways. Implicit faith has no foundation in the Fathers whatsoever. The Athanasian Creed is from the Fathers. As a matter of fact implicit faith has no foundation in any Saint or anyone till like 1600 years after Christ.

Fr. William Jurgens: “… we must stress that a particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which
is itself a vehicle of revelation.”
 

Actually I posted 2 quotes from Early Church Fathers that hint at the existence of Baptism of Desire and Implied Baptism of Desire. You say that these quotes can be interpreted in many different ways. Please show me other ways that they can be interpreted. Maybe then I will see your point. .

You posted one quote about baptism of Blood, which I did not quote because I'm strictly focusing on the second quote. To continue on the second quote:

The quote can be interpreted in any way that a person wants to interpret what "reason" is. I already showed you (on my second posting of this thread) how I as a Catholic interpreted it (see bold):

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

“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 (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [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 were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 46).

What is this reason that he is talking about. This is totally subjective.

All true salvific reason comes from the Holy Ghost, it is called actual grace, and sanctifying grace. And if anyone listens to this voice of reason, they will go get baptized and become Catholics.

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

You quote Fr. Jurgens on this but that could only be an opinion. What he says is not necessarily infallible either

I posted also the Athanasian creed, it is infallible, and it says that the person to be saved must:

Quote

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Here are some more quotes for you about using an odd saint quote as dogma:

Quote from: Jehanne

St. Vincent de Lerins taught this:
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecuмenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike." (The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434)

The Fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and this is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a Father of the Church or a handful of Fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the popes; and a Catholic accents to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica , June 26, 1749: “The
Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned
for his holiness and teaching.”

Errors of the Jansenists, : “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.” Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII


Pope Pius XII, Humani generis , Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church".

I see why you think the way you think about this. But I still disagree with your interpretation. While the general rule is that we must hold the Catholic Faith, this creed simply does not mention the stipulations involved such as Baptism of Desire. Its kind of like how Christ said that nobody will see the Kingdom of Heaven unless born of water and spirit. This would be the general rule regarding Baptism. However, He comes back later in scripture and mentions a stipulation to the general rule when he says that there is another Baptism. I try to think of it this way...Jesus Christ would state the general rule to things, and for the most part did not mention stipulations to the general rule until later. If you think about it, in those days the goal was to spread the message and as quickly as possible. If He sat there and mentioned all the stipulations to every teaching He gave then He would have been there all day talking about just a few different things. This is part of the reason why He established a hierarchy and the Papacy. He left it up to them to fill in the gaps. To reiterate, I would go "all in" on the Athanasian Creed stating the general rule to things and not mentioning the stipulations to those rules. Thats it. Had the Athanasian Creed mentioned all the stipulations then it would have been annoyingly long.

I see why you think the way you think about this. But I still disagree with your interpretation. While the general rule is that we must hold the Catholic Faith, this creed simply does not mention the stipulations involved such as Baptism of Desire. Its kind of like how Christ said that nobody will see the Kingdom of Heaven unless born of water and spirit. This would be the general rule regarding Baptism. However, He comes back later in scripture and mentions a stipulation to the general rule when he says that there is another Baptism. I try to think of it this way...Jesus Christ would state the general rule to things, and for the most part did not mention stipulations to the general rule until later. If you think about it, in those days the goal was to spread the message and as quickly as possible. If He sat there and mentioned all the stipulations to every teaching He gave then He would have been there all day talking about just a few different things. This is part of the reason why He established a hierarchy and the Papacy. He left it up to them to fill in the gaps. To reiterate, I would go "all in" on the Athanasian Creed stating the general rule to things and not mentioning the stipulations to those rules. Thats it. Had the Athanasian Creed mentioned all the stipulations then it would have been annoyingly long.

It is only you who are forced to "make interpretations", for I don't have to make one single interpretation! EVERYTHING I believe, I believe exactly as it is clearly written in dogmatic decrees.

In order to believe your own made theology you have to ignore
All of the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church including St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that taught clearly that a  catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved.


In reality you are ignoring ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

Even worse, you have to reject all of the popes who made the clear dogmatic decrees that I follow exactly as they are clearly written:

Bowler said:.. I believe in EENS as it is written. What St. Augustine taught is exactly inline with the dogmatic decrees on EENS. I don't need to add any "qualifiers" to what the popes and councils have defined dogmatically to this present day.


What is EENS as it is written?

EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) translates to  Outside of the Church there is no salvation. EENS as it is written means that we believe the dogmatic decrees on EENS exactly as the words say.



Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees that all agree with St. Augustine


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 Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
 
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema


Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”

The Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.

While we are at it, here is an additional list of decrees from popes that you also reject/ ignore  in your believing that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved:

More Popes on Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Notice the years and years of popes that I quote, and NEVER one mentions exceptions that save. Every quote says unequivocally that no one is saved:

The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which Popes, by their common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely revealed. The teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are infallible.  Thus, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard to Outside the Church There is No Salvation, because this dogma has been defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter.  So beware of those people who try to find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on Outside the Church There is No Salvation by calling statements which contradict this dogma, part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when they can't be.  
       
The following quotations from many Popes are reaffirmations of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  These teachings of the Popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are therefore infallible – since they reiterate the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
 
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation.  In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:  “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”

Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscuм (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” – Condemned

Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900:  “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”

Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal salvation…”

Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society.  Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928:  “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship.  This is the fount of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.”  

I am not rejecting the Early Church Fathers nor ignoring them. The problem that you are facing is that you are not willing to accept the fact that there are people who are not in full communion with the Church, but are apart of it. There is always the general rule to things. We should always seek to do what the general rule says, and never count on the stipulations. Your argument is ignoring teachings of the earliest apostles and stipulations. You must admit that Christ says that we must be born of water and spirit. Based on your logic this is the only way to salvation. Even though Christ comes back later and mentions Baptism by Blood. Are you going to stick to Water Baptism being the only way? If this is how you see it then you are rejecting not only Early Church Fathers but also scripture. How could anyone reject scripture?

You have not even shown one Church Father clearly teaching what you believe, that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved. You are opposed by all of those sources that I quoted.

You are making up your own novel religion. Now I remember who you are, you changed your avatar. Your posted views in prior forums showed that you don't know the Catholc faith at all. I'd suggest that you learn the faith before coming on here to pontificate things you don't even believe yourself.

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

I am not rejecting the Early Church Fathers nor ignoring them. The problem that you are facing is that you are not willing to accept the fact that there are people who are not in full communion with the Church, but are apart of it. There is always the general rule to things. We should always seek to do what the general rule says, and never count on the stipulations. Your argument is ignoring teachings of the earliest apostles and stipulations. You must admit that Christ says that we must be born of water and spirit. Based on your logic this is the only way to salvation. Even though Christ comes back later and mentions Baptism by Blood. Are you going to stick to Water Baptism being the only way? If this is how you see it then you are rejecting not only Early Church Fathers but also scripture. How could anyone reject scripture?

You have not even shown one Church Father clearly teaching what you believe, that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved. You are opposed by all of those sources that I quoted.

You are making up your own novel religion. Now I remember who you are, you changed your avatar. Your posted views in prior forums showed that you don't know the Catholc faith at all. I'd suggest that you learn the faith before coming on here to pontificate things you don't even believe yourself.

From my perspective, if they have no desire to be Baptized (given they were afforded the opportunity) then yes they are most likely in danger.

Quote from: bowler

In order to believe your own made theology you have to ignore
All of the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church including St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that taught clearly that a  catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved.

In reality you are ignoring ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

Bowler, it's interesting to note here that you are referencing the Church fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, and the Catechism of Trent to support your argument against baptism of desire,

Strawman.

You have a habit of not quoting what I said, so you can change it to whatever lie you want to teach. Here is what I said:

In order to believe your own made theology you have to ignore
All of the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church including St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that taught clearly that a  catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved.

In reality you are ignoring ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

Even worse, you have to reject all of the popes who made the clear dogmatic decrees that I follow exactly as they are clearly written:


While we are at it, here is an additional list of decrees from popes that you also reject/ ignore  in your believing that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved:

 

What I wrote is actually just the same thing that I had said to in another thread that your belief that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved, goes against all of the ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more). What you believe is novel teaching of implicit faith, which says that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

That has NOTHING to do with baptism of blood, or baptism of desire of the Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more)!

Bowler, it's interesting to note here that you are referencing the Church fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, and the Catechism of Trent to support your argument against baptism of desire, while I have been quoting those SAME references in support of baptism of desire. Doesn't that tell you something? As I have said, and as InfiniteFaith is saying, this shows that these sources teach BOTH baptism of water and baptism of desire/blood.

For example, you will quote St. Thomas speaking of baptism of water, while I will now quote St. Thomas speaking of baptism of desire. He teaches BOTH, because BOTH are a teaching of the Church:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
“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."

Will you now condemn St. Thomas Aquinas as well?

We are waiting to hear back from you on this Bowler. If St. Thomas doesn't believe in baptism of desire, then please explain to us what he means in his statement above.