We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.

Wrong.  We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.

That seems awful close to a strawman, if my understanding of a strawman is accurate.

No.  A strawman is misrepresentation of an opponent's position.  I did not represent your position at all.  I simply stated the truth of why those infants are damned.

You seem to ignore the fact that as much as God saves many without their active cooperation and consent (baptized infants who die before attaining the use of reason), it is equally just for Him to allow the reprobation of many in the same way, especially when it is the sins of men that have brought this upon them in the first place.  

Indeed, if this child was condemned to hell, it would be only for original sin. My point was it is impossible for an aborted child to be baptized, and as such, the free will of it's parents have ultimately placed it in a situation where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding...

Not exactly.  Their sin, which was foreknown to God, condemned their child to death before the child is able to receive baptism.  God does not condemn them to hell, the sin into which they were conceived condemns them to hell, and again, God does not OWE salvation to anybody.

...where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding... Which again makes no sense, as God is bound by nothing.

Wrong again.  God is perfect justice, do you agree?  So if God makes an oath, don't you agree he will infallibly and perfectly keep it?  God binds Himself to His oaths and keeps them infallibly.  His oath is in St. John 3:5, begining with "Amen, amen I say to you,"

...would never have the chance to hear Catholic truth.  God has predestined them to damnation in a sense, by allowing them to be born in a place where they would never receive valid baptism.

The part in bold is heresy.  I just thought you would like to be made aware of this.

Damned for original sin alone, or damned for original sin and idolatry is little different.  Both are in hell.

Both never had the opportunity to escape hell fire.

God is bound to that.

Your argument is specious.  You are denying the mercy of God and His ability to bestow it on whomever He will.  If there was a good willed person in the world, even far, far away from any people who held the true religion, do you not think that God would get an Israelite priest (in the Old Testament) or the sacrament of baptism to them, even if He had to resort to using miraculous means to do so?

I offer the Old Testament example of Rahab the harlot, who, rather than being destroyed, was accepted into the family of God, the people of Israel.  I offer also again the example of Caius of Korea.

In addition, I will offer this interesting excerpt from the Revelations of St. Brigitta:

As to why, given that the human soul is better than the world, preachers are not sent always and everywhere, I answer: The soul is indeed worthier and nobler than all the world, and more lasting than all things. The soul is more worthy, because she is a spiritual creature like the angels and made for eternal joy. She is more noble because she was made in the image of my divinity, both immortal and eternal. Because humankind is worthier and nobler than all creatures, the human race should live more nobly as having been endowed with reason beyond all the rest. If they abuse their reason and my divine gifts, what wonder is it if, at the time of judgment, I punish that which had been overlooked in the time of mercy?

So preachers are not sent always and everywhere, because I, God, foreseeing the hardness of many hearts, spare my chosen ones the trouble, so that they need not work in vain. And because many, deliberately sinning with full knowledge, decide to persevere in sin rather than to be converted, they are not worthy to hear the messengers of salvation.

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Are you turning Gnostic on me?  I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.

I feel this is definitely unfair.  The question is purely hypothetical.  Just we know that Saint Joseph was a widower and he had children from a previous marriage through sacred tradition, though there is no record of such, how can we be completely sure that Saint Peter did not infallibly teach baptism by blood or desire?

The life of St. Joseph is not a doctrine of faith or morals.  Baptism is a doctrine of faith.  The Bible and the Catholic Church's Tradition are PUBLIC revelation.

In Acts 10:34-35, Peter is awful close to doing so.

Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35: "And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him."

This passage supports the Catholic position, that is a person tries their best to adhere to the natural law written on their hearts, God will accept them and bring them into His faith, unto salvation.

How can Cornelius be acceptable without Baptism?

Hypothetical, of course.  

As far as Jean de Brebuef is concerned, that is a very large assumption.

If you believed that the desire to receive baptism counted for the deed, would you risk being tortured to go baptizin'?

Trent says that reception of communion and reconciliation are not necessary for salvation.  Yet why do people place themselves in such danger to receive them?

Maybe this is what you are talking about:

Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 4: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein."

If they do not make every possible effort to get the sacrament, then it shows that they didn't truly desire the sacrament in the first place, and one has to wonder if they even had perfect contrition, which is a supernatural gift of grace from God, by the way.

Besides, Trent clearly teaches that a person is BOUND to receive the sacrament of penance, and that it IS necessary for forgiveness of sins committed after baptism.

Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 5: "From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism;"

So in our case, when the only sacraments available are those of heretics, it would be sinful to receive them, and we must not.  But in the case of a person who might have to risk his life to go get the sacrament from a valid and orthodox Catholic priest, he must make the attempt, since he cannot know for sure if he has perfect contrition, or merely attrition.

Reject baptism of desire already.

Go try saying this statement while looking your reflection in the eyes:
"I believe all of God's words as they have been declared in the infallible Solemn Magisterium."

By the way, the list of Church Fathers who dissented from BoD and BoB, and taught the absolute necessity of water baptism is contained in the last post of page 4 in this thread.

It is quite peculiar that you except Trent's teaching on the desire of Penance and the Eucharist, but not Baptism.  Why the double standard?

I accept ALL of Trent.  You are the one who does not.  The causes of justification are clearly set out in Session 6, Chapter 7.

"The causes of justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask the faith that gives eternal life ..."

Desire is NOT among them, hence YOU are misunderstanding Trent, not I.

Well you can baldly assert something until you're blue in the face, but you need to demonstrate how it is a contradiction.

Hmmm...  Boldly, perhaps you meant to say?  I have plenty of hair on my head, thanks.  Why don't we let you demonstrate in your own words how there is a contradiciton:

Sure, the effects aren't exactly the same, for example, the character is not received, but for the purposes of justification, from being translated from sin to grace, the effects are substantially the same.

But they haven't received baptism Caminus.  No sacramental character, no baptism.  No baptism, no justification, since it is the instrumental cause.  Your lack of linguistic understanding aside, surely you cannot deny that the Council of Trent was EXPLICITLY declaring the causes of justification in the Chapter I cited above.  You will not that this chapter does NOT mention desire for baptism.  Again, you are completely misunderstanding the issue, despite numerous admonitions and proofs.

For the third time, to say that one can receive the fruit of the sacrament by means of a particular kind of willing moved by grace is to actually affirm the necessity of the sacrament.  In order to have a contradiction, you need to demonstrate a negation of the proposition "baptism is necessary for salvation."  You also need to demonstrate that "baptism" must necessarily in every possible case refer to the literal application of water.

How about "If anyone saith that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema."  But you wiggle around it like the heretic you are.

Another aspect of your problem is that you alone presume to understand the definitions in the exact same sense and manner as those who promulgated them.  You don't seem to realize that the interpreter of the magisterium is tradition itself, which you reject in favor of your own opinions.  In this respect, you are no traditional catholic at all, but a heretic, i.e. one who picks and chooses.

Picks and chooses?  Excuse me, but Traditions that are based upon the objective sense of a dogma are Catholic Traditions, and traditions which reject this objective sense are traditions of men.

Yes, you're a picker and a chooser.  You don't like this doctrine because you mistakenly think that it contradicts dogma.  How is it that making a "spiritual communion" doesn't contradict dogma relating to the Eucharist, but baptism of desire does?

Because I believe all of the decrees in the sense that they were declared, you think I am picking and choosing, but since these dogmas have an objective sense, there is no arbitration on my part at all.  I have but to assent and obey.

Poor "Catholic Martyr" has inverted the rule of doctrinal tradition.

THIS is the rule of Catholic Tradition:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Do you deny this?  Would you invert this?  You do Caminus, you do.  You hereticaly say my assertion that a doctor is fallible is an attack on authority.  Not so.  The only authority that matters is the HIGHEST authority, which authority it is heresy to contradict.

This is amusing, for when the highest authority disagrees with your understanding, you simply depose him.  What about Innocent III?  What about Pius XII?  What about Pius X?  Or Leo XIII or even the Fathers of Trent when they placed the Summa on the altar next to the Scriptures?  Are you seriously implying that the tradition of the Fathers doesn't constitute an authoriy?  You haven't a leg to stand on my friend.

The tradition of the Fathers DOES constitute and authority, but ONLY when it is unbroken by dissenting opinions and when it does not contradict any defined dogmas.

Even one dissenting opinion doesn't necessarily mitigate against a moral unanimity, even if you could provide one which I don't think you can.

How about a whole list of them.  Page 4 of this thread, last post on it.

Caminus, show me one instance where any of the above people spoke ex cathedra and taught baptism of desire as a declared dogma.  In vitur of his office as pope, with the intent to BIND ALL CHRISTIANS.  You can't.  Only Pius XII taught it, and he did not even try to invoke infallibility, nor could he, since he was a public heretic and not pope.

They don't have to speak "ex cathedra" in order for you to be obliged to believe something.  That is yet another error on your part.

No they don't Caminus.  I never said they did.  I do not hold that error at all.  I hold the CORRECT and CATHOLIC position that when a pope teaches PUBLICLY on a matter, then we are bound to assent to his teaching, even if he does so in his fallible capacity.  If it should turn out that a subsequent pope teaches contrary to this, then we must assent to the new teaching.  This is why baptism of desire, though once an allowable theological opinion, is now heresy.  It denies the subsequent teachings of several popes on the absolute necessity of water baptism.

What it comes down to is this Caminus:  YOU DO DENY the decree that states dogmas are to be understood AS THEY HAVE ONCE BEEN DECLARED, and then you try and wiggle your way out of being exposed.

The only thing being exposed in this thread is your sheer lunacy.  Of course I take decrees according to the intention of the lawgiver as explained by the Fathers and theologians and even the magisterium itself when it has explained itself.  It is in fact you who have not understood the dogma itself.  Imagine that, catholic martyr is wrong and all the doctors, theologians and Fathers of the Catholic Church are right!  What a crazy thought!

If you go to page 4 of this thread and read the last post there, you will have to say that all those Fathers were wrong too.

Reject the traditions of men that contradict those of the Church, absolutely.  Your position basically asserts that NOBODY in the Church can commit an error, as long as they are a pope or bishop or Church Father, but then your position completely breaks down, since there has not been an unbroken opinion concerning baptism of desire or baptism of blood in the Early Church, let alone among theologians even today.  No two theologians teach this supposed doctrine in the same terms at all.

The more you speak, the more I realize that you are not catholic.  I'm not sure when kind of strange bird you are, but you are definately not catholic.  No catholic in his right mind would call the sacred tradition of the Church a contemptible "tradition of men."  Putting words in my mouth in order to divert from your insanity won't help much.

I put no words in your mouth at all, you're projecting your own crimes onto me.

Where do Sacred traditions come from, if not from the authority of the Church?  And if the Church infallibly rules on a doctrine, and then someone ignores it and presumes to teach contrary, are they acting with the authority of the Church?  No.

Furthermore, if you want to talk tradition of the Church:

The Church has not allowed for the faithful to offer prayers, sacrifices or oblations for the unbaptized deceased, and you know this.  This tradition reflects the truth that these people are in fact not justified and they are in hell.  Otherwise, if baptism of blood or baptism of desire were true, you would have to say that this is an evil tradition, which prevents certain souls in Purgatory from attaining heaven in a timely manner.  Unless you want to argue that baptism of desire removes all the debt of temporal punishment, but then you would be in an even smaller camp of baptism of desire heretics.