CathInfo.com

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.