Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Binechi on December 04, 2014, 09:05:54 AM
-
Baptism of Desire 101
Define Baptism of Desire...
The theory of men that a man can obtain eternal salvation thru a "(vow, votum, desire, will) for the Sacrament of Baptism, without ever being water Baptised.... and in the later times, without being a member of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church does not teach this , never will ,,, Trent has never taught this, Never will.
Most out there use the erroneous translation of Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogmas), on the session of Justification to try to "justify" their position.
There is another source out there with its Latin that vilifies the Denz. and brings to light the true meaning of Trent, on justification and that is the translation by Fr. Norman P. Tanner.
Tanner
Chap. 4. Suggested description of the justification of a sinner and its character in the state of grace
By those words there is suggested a description of the justification of a sinner: how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as children of God through the agency of the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the waters of rebirth or the desire for them, as it is written:
Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
So Justification Cannot take Place if either the water or the vow, desire for the water are missing.
Both are required or you have No Justification. No justification , No Salvation
There is lots more to be said on this subject , but will leave it for further review..
The Latin by Tanner...
Cap. IV. Insinmatur descriptio instificationis impii, et modus eius in statu gratioe
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii desceptio insinuator, ut sit translation ab eo statu, in qui homo nascitur filus primi Adac, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei3, per secundum Adam lesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quac quidem translation post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei4.
-
The Roman Catechism clearly teaches an adult can die in a sudden accident and still be save.
Different topic. That's honestly what annoys me to no end. Every single BoD thread immediately goes off topic. This thread is dedicated to the question of whether the Council of Trent itself taught BoD.
And, no The Roman Catechism does NOT "clearly" teach BoD. Not only that, but it's clearly referring to no one other than a Catechumen, someone preparing for Baptism and intending to be Baptized, not some Great Thumb worshipper in the jungle, eh? I'll address that when you actually start a thread dedicated to the subject.
-
The official law of the Church recognizes the same by making the priest offer a public requiem mass for such souls.
And now another topic, the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Again, start a different thread about that. Pretty soon you'll be citing Van Noort and going off the deep end, trying to convert this into a 150-page thread about anything and everything related to BoD.
1917 Code of Canon Law also speaks explicitly of "CATECHUMENS" ... so it does not back your Pelagian heresy either.
-
It's as if you guys just try to throw handfuls of excrement at the wall hoping that something will stick. If one point is refuted, you try some other angle, and then another ... instead of sticking to one point at a time.
-
The Roman Catechism clearly teaches an adult can die in a sudden accident and still be save.
Different topic. That's honestly what annoys me to no end. Every single BoD thread immediately goes off topic. This thread is dedicated to the question of whether the Council of Trent itself taught BoD.
And, no The Roman Catechism does NOT "clearly" teach BoD. Not only that, but it's clearly referring to no one other than a Catechumen, someone preparing for Baptism and intending to be Baptized, not some Great Thumb worshipper in the jungle, eh? I'll address that when you actually start a thread dedicated to the subject.
Yes, it is PRECISELY on-topic. It fits the title, and it addresses Director's claim that Trent doesn't teach baptism of desire.
Yes, it fits the title. No, it does not address the topic of whether Trent taught BoD in the passage cited.
-
Yes, the adult who died as referenced in the Trent catechism quote I gave, died justified by an act of baptism of desire.....not water.
Wrong thread. You just insist on polluting and trolling up every single thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.
-
What a troll. How hard would it be for you to start another thread?
-
What a troll. How hard would it be for you to start another thread?
I hate to butt in but nada cannot stay on topic for even two posts - and that's giving it the benefit of the doubt.
-
Here we go again!
Nowhere in the Council of Trent or ever for that matter, the Church has taught that the desire for Baptism is sufficient for Salvation. The Church could not contradict Herself in what She has infallibly defined. Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for every soul to enter Heaven and it is no optional for no one. This is dogma.
The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)
Infallible Magisterium:
A. Council of Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith:
The sacrament of Baptism, which at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely the Father the Son and The Holy Ghost, is solemnized in water, rightly conferred to anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation.
B. Council of Florence, Exaltate Domino (1439):
Holy Baptism...holds the first place among the sacraments....the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water, it makes no difference warm or cold.
C. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):
In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.
D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
-
What's absolutely fatal to this interpretation of Trent is the quote from Our Lord that comes afterwards.
On its face, the phrase "X cannot happen without A or B" is ambiguous ... due to the double-negative construct. It could mean "X cannot happen without both A & B" or "X cannot happen without EITHER A OR B". But the phrase after it immediately disambiguates.
Why did Trent use the word "laver" instead of just saying "Baptism" or "the Sacrament of Baptism"? It's because Trent wanted to invoke the notion of WATER. Trent had also just spent paragraphs explaining how the Holy Spirit disposes the will to cooperate with the grace of justification. It's about the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament bringing the grace of justification WITH COOPERATION OF THE WILL ... against the Protestant errors. That's why there's a Canon later condemning the notion that the Sacrament can effect justification without the cooperation of the will. St. Thomas devoted a question to whether the Sacrament confers the grace of justification if the will doesn't cooperate.
So, back to Trent, the Holy Spirit give graces to inspire the will to cooperate with the ex opere operato grace from the Sacrament of Baptism.
Trent taught that justification cannot happen without the laver (water) or the will (as moved by the Holy Spirit) and then immediately backs that statement up by quoting Our Lord as teaching that rebirth requires water AND the Holy Spirit, i.e. the laver AND the movement of the will by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the cooperation and proper dispositions.
In order for me to accept the typical reading of Trent, I would have to say that Trent said:
Justification cannot happen without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that it cannot happen without both Baptism and the desire for it. That would be borderline blasphemous. Our Lord said and, but we say or.
That is NOT what Trent is teaching.
In addition, if Trent were teaching BoD, the fact that there's not even a token mention of BoB is absolutely inexplicable, since most of the Church Fathers who advocated BoB explicitly rejected BoD and most BoB theorists claim that it works differently from BoB in being "quasi ex opere operato". Trent then overturns the Patristic teaching of BoB but no BoD by saying that BoB essentially reduces to BoD and is therefore ex opere operantis in its effect.
There is absolutely no way that Trent intended to define or teach BoD here.
True. Trent teaches that BOTH are necessary WATER and FAITH and anathemize those who deny it.
-
.
Nado is a CMRI groupie, with blinders on.
When someone refuses to see the obvious there is no hope of a conversation.
When it comes to the lifespan of man, there is no such thing as an "accident" in the eyes of God.
.
-
Again, wrong thread, Nado.
-
What a troll. How hard would it be for you to start another thread?
Trolls don't start new threads when they know they'll just be ignored.
Trolls hate being ignored. It really gets their billy goat gruff. HAHAHAHA
.
-
Yes, the adult who died as referenced in the Trent catechism quote I gave, died justified by an act of baptism of desire.....not water.
Wrong thread. You just insist on polluting and trolling up every single thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.
It's a protestant tactic. I've seen it again and again. I know a 'Jєωιѕн' agnostic who just can't manage to stay on topic regarding epistemology. He claims to like to talk about philosophy, but when I call his bluff, he runs for cover. Every. Single. Time.
Protestants like to jump topic not because they are intellectually dishonest, but because they are demonically obsessed. They do what comes natural, and that means putting up smokescreens when the going gets uncomfortable.
When a wild animal is trapped, you can't blame him for acting out with violence, because that's the way his nervous system is wired.
.
-
Baptism 101
Define Baptism of Desire...
The theory of men that a man can obtain eternal salvation thru a "(vow, votum, desire, will) for the Sacrament of Baptism, without ever being water Baptised.... and in the later times, without being a member of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church does not teach this , never will ,,, Trent has never taught this, Never will.
Most out there use the erroneous translation of Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogmas), on the session of Justification to try to "justify" their position.
There is another source out there with its Latin that vilifies the Denz. and brings to light the true meaning of Trent, on justification and that is the translation by Fr. Norman P. Tanner.
Tanner
Chap. 4. Suggested description of the justification of a sinner and its character in the state of grace
By those words there is suggested a description of the justification of a sinner: how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as children of God through the agency of the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the waters of rebirth or the desire for them, as it is written:
Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
So Justification Cannot take Place if either the water or the vow, desire for the water are missing.
Both are required or you have No Justification. No justification , No Salvation
There is lots more to be said on this subject , but will leave it for further review..
The Latin by Tanner...
Cap. IV. Insinmatur descriptio instificationis impii, et modus eius in statu gratioe
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii desceptio insinuator, ut sit translation ab eo statu, in qui homo nascitur filus primi Adac, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei3, per secundum Adam lesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quac quidem translation post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei4.
-
Norman P. Tanner
Author profile
born The United Kingdom
gender
male
genre
History, Christian
influences
Frederick Copleson
About this author
edit data 
Norman P. Tanner, SJ is a Catholic historian and priest of the Jesuit Order. He currently holds the position of Professor of Church History at the Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, in the Vatican City, Rome.
Fr. Tanner entered the Jesuit Order in 1961, and achieved his S.T.L. in Church history under the renowned historian, Frederick Copleston, SJ. He then received his Ph.D at Oxford University, as a member of Campion Hall; he also holds a B.Theol from the Gregorian University.
An internationally-acclaimed expert in Church councils, Fr. Tanner is the editor of a definitive translation of the major docuмents of the councils: Decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils (2 vols). He has a special love for the later Middle-Ages, and has written several books on popular religion in the Medieval period, as well as a plethora of books and articles on the history and practice of the historical Church councils.
Fr. Tanner taught from 1978 until 2003 at Oxford University (a University Research Lecturer from 1997 until 2003); leaving his post to take up his current place at the Gregorian University.
-
What is this "tag team" stuff, Nado?
This is a F-O-R-U-M. That's how forums OPERATE. People create threads and multiple other participants jump in and address the same topic.
Now, if it's that you're feeling lonely, feel free to PM the BoD cavalry (LoT, Ambrose, Don Paolo, SJB, et al.) to come to your aid and join the thread.
You simply won't stay on topic. I articulated why the particular passage in the Council of Trent does NOT mean what you claim that it means. You are obviously incapable of refuting my interpretation, so you change the subject. "OK, let's talk about the Catechism of Trent" and the "Code of Canon Law". This thread isn't about those.
-
The Roman Catechism clearly teaches an adult can die in a sudden accident and still be save.
Different topic. That's honestly what annoys me to no end. Every single BoD thread immediately goes off topic. This thread is dedicated to the question of whether the Council of Trent itself taught BoD.
And, no The Roman Catechism does NOT "clearly" teach BoD. Not only that, but it's clearly referring to no one other than a Catechumen, someone preparing for Baptism and intending to be Baptized, not some Great Thumb worshipper in the jungle, eh? I'll address that when you actually start a thread dedicated to the subject.
Yes, it is PRECISELY on-topic. It fits the title, and it addresses Director's claim that Trent doesn't teach baptism of desire.
Yes, it fits the title. No, it does not address the topic of whether Trent taught BoD in the passage cited.
Are you saying that the Catechism of the Council of Trent does not know how to interpret the Council of Trent properly?
-
Are you saying that the Catechism of the Council of Trent does not know how to interpret the Council of Trent properly?
No, I'm saying that the Catechism was much broader and there's no indication whatsoever that this particular passage in the Catechism has ANYthing to do with the passage in the Council under discussion here. Just because the Catechism may have suggested BoD doesn't mean it was doing so based on any particular passage in Trent vs. independently.
Why are so many people logically challenged?
-
What a troll. How hard would it be for you to start another thread?
Trolls don't start new threads when they know they'll just be ignored.
Trolls hate being ignored. It really gets their billy goat gruff. HAHAHAHA
.
True. Well, I have decided it is time to ignore Nado now. A 6 year old can read better than her.
She is either a complete Lunatic or lack basic reading comprehension skills, but either way, not worth a conversation.
-
Yes, the adult who died as referenced in the Trent catechism quote I gave, died justified by an act of baptism of desire.....not water.
Wrong thread. You just insist on polluting and trolling up every single thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.
It's a protestant tactic. I've seen it again and again. I know a 'Jєωιѕн' agnostic who just can't manage to stay on topic regarding epistemology. He claims to like to talk about philosophy, but when I call his bluff, he runs for cover. Every. Single. Time.
Protestants like to jump topic not because they are intellectually dishonest, but because they are demonically obsessed. They do what comes natural, and that means putting up smokescreens when the going gets uncomfortable.
When a wild animal is trapped, you can't blame him for acting out with violence, because that's the way his nervous system is wired.
.
:laugh2:
Where have you been, dear Neil Obstat?
I have missed you! Few here have your great wit!
-
Yes, the adult who died as referenced in the Trent catechism quote I gave, died justified by an act of baptism of desire.....not water.
Wrong thread. You just insist on polluting and trolling up every single thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.
It fits the title, as you admitted.
It directly refutes the OP claim that Trent didn't teach baptism of desire. I showed it did.
Precisely on-topic.
Bump.
The title was just very broad. Create a new thread, troll.
Address my argument regarding why you can't read Trent as teaching BoD in the "famous" passage.
-
Yes, the adult who died as referenced in the Trent catechism quote I gave, died justified by an act of baptism of desire.....not water.
Wrong thread. You just insist on polluting and trolling up every single thread instead of addressing the issue at hand.
It's a protestant tactic. I've seen it again and again. I know a 'Jєωιѕн' agnostic who just can't manage to stay on topic regarding epistemology. He claims to like to talk about philosophy, but when I call his bluff, he runs for cover. Every. Single. Time.
Protestants like to jump topic not because they are intellectually dishonest, but because they are demonically obsessed. They do what comes natural, and that means putting up smokescreens when the going gets uncomfortable.
When a wild animal is trapped, you can't blame him for acting out with violence, because that's the way his nervous system is wired.
.
:laugh2:
Where have you been, dear Neil Obstat?
I have missed you! Few here have your great wit!
Here here!
-
If I may,
The Hanover translation of Trent agrees with the OP.
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
God bless,
JoeZ
-
What's absolutely fatal to this interpretation of Trent is the quote from Our Lord that comes afterwards.
On its face, the phrase "X cannot happen without A or B" is ambiguous ... due to the double-negative construct. It could mean "X cannot happen without both A & B" or "X cannot happen without EITHER A OR B". But the phrase after it immediately disambiguates.
Why did Trent use the word "laver" instead of just saying "Baptism" or "the Sacrament of Baptism"? It's because Trent wanted to invoke the notion of WATER. Trent had also just spent paragraphs explaining how the Holy Spirit disposes the will to cooperate with the grace of justification. It's about the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament bringing the grace of justification WITH COOPERATION OF THE WILL ... against the Protestant errors. That's why there's a Canon later condemning the notion that the Sacrament can effect justification without the cooperation of the will. St. Thomas devoted a question to whether the Sacrament confers the grace of justification if the will doesn't cooperate.
So, back to Trent, the Holy Spirit give graces to inspire the will to cooperate with the ex opere operato grace from the Sacrament of Baptism.
Trent taught that justification cannot happen without the laver (water) or the will (as moved by the Holy Spirit) and then immediately backs that statement up by quoting Our Lord as teaching that rebirth requires water AND the Holy Spirit, i.e. the laver AND the movement of the will by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the cooperation and proper dispositions.
In order for me to accept the typical reading of Trent, I would have to say that Trent said:
Justification cannot happen without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that it cannot happen without both Baptism and the desire for it. That would be borderline blasphemous. Our Lord said and, but we say or.
That is NOT what Trent is teaching.
In addition, if Trent were teaching BoD, the fact that there's not even a token mention of BoB is absolutely inexplicable, since most of the Church Fathers who advocated BoB explicitly rejected BoD and most BoB theorists claim that it works differently from BoB in being "quasi ex opere operato". Trent then overturns the Patristic teaching of BoB but no BoD by saying that BoB essentially reduces to BoD and is therefore ex opere operantis in its effect.
There is absolutely no way that Trent intended to define or teach BoD here.
-
The Catechism ordered by that Council/St. Pius V, shows that you have the wrong interpretation, as I explained in my last message.
Address the above or just shut up already. As I have explained, there's zero indication in said Catechism that the passage you refer to has anything to do with the passage in Trent itself. That passage in the Catechism is NOT an interpretation of that passage in the Council of Trent. Whether you believe in BoD or not has nothing to do with this issue. Refute my reading of Trent or begone, Satan.
-
The Catechism ordered by that Council/St. Pius V, shows that you have the wrong interpretation, as I explained in my last message.
Address the above or just shut up already. As I have explained, there's zero indication in said Catechism that the passage you refer to has anything to do with the passage in Trent itself. That passage in the Catechism is NOT an interpretation of that passage in the Council of Trent. Whether you believe in BoD or not has nothing to do with this issue. Refute my reading of Trent or begone, Satan.
It sure is talking about the same subject of baptism of desire.
No. I demonstrated that Trent was NOT talking about the Baptism of Desire. Refute what I wrote.
-
Catechisms have merit as long as they do not contradict Magisterial teaching. The Church had always taught that there is only ONE Baptism and that of water and the word. It is a Catholic dogma that there is only ONE Baptism, celebrated with water. This is de fide whereas Baptism of Desire is most definitely not. It is a speculative doctrine at the most and this given that the person holds already the Catholic Faith. Statements original to the catechism' text itself do not belong to the Magisterium and are not infallible. The narrative explanation on the Catholic doctrines are not the dogmas. The dogmas are the canons that follow the narrative explanation. Only the canons are formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. If there is any conflict between the narrative and the canons, the narrative is interpreted in light of the canon and not vice-versa.
-
Nado can't refute my interpretation of what the Council of Trent taught in the tract on justification, so he keeps talking about the Catechism. I'll just start a new thread because the dingbat is obsessed with the "Baptism 101" thread title. Basically he's using that to dodge an argument he simply cannot refute.
-
The Catechism of Trent is not the Council of Trent
NOT EVERY PARAGRAPH OF THE CATECHISM OF TRENT WAS PROMULGATED INFALLIBLY
The Council of Trent closed on Dec. 4, 1563. The Catechism of Trent was still being worked on in 1564 and it wasn’t finally published until 1566. The Catechism of Trent is not the Council of Trent. It is not infallible in every paragraph, but only in those points of doctrine to be passed along to all the faithful; for those matters represent what the Church has always taught.
Even the introduction to the popular Tan Books’ translation of the Catechism of Trent has a quote from Dr. John Hagan, who admits that “its teaching is not infallible.” The Catechism of Trent is more than 500 pages long in a common English version. It was worked on by a variety of theologians.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official docuмents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine… Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
-
Nado can't refute my interpretation of what the Council of Trent taught in the tract on justification, so he keeps talking about the Catechism. I'll just start a new thread because the dingbat is obsessed with the "Baptism 101" thread title. Basically he's using that to dodge an argument he simply cannot refute.
Your quote is NOT the OP. I don't even have to address it (here). I have addressed the OP, and the OP is wrong because the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire. The Roman Catechism, though not protected by the promise of Infallibility AT THE TIME of promulgation, became infallible by the active infallibility of the ordinary magisterium since then, as well as by the passive infallibility of the believing Church.
"passive infallibility of the believing Church"? Gotta be a sede thang.
-
As I've pointed out, Nado, the passive infallibility of the Church doesn't exist. It's nothing more than the corollary to the "active" infallibility of the Church. Because the Church's Magisterium is actively infallible, anyone who adheres to the Church's Magisterium is passively infallible (by virtue of the active infallibility). It's just a concept and has no independent existence outside the active infallibility; the minute rejects the overall Magisterium, presto, "passive infallibility" ceases.
What you are so ineptly trying to say is that BoD is part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church.
It's not, but you can't even make the argument correctly.
Plus, for 1600 years, it was never doubted by anyone ever that explicit faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. Yet somehow you claim that this believe can be "disputed".
You are of bad will, Nado.
-
Notice once again, that Nado can't refute my interpretation of Trent. So Nado moves along to the Catechism. Now Nado moves on to the "passive infallibility" argument again. Every time Nado is cornered, Nado tries a different argument. That clearly manifests bad will and "begging the question". Nado has decided he doesn't like EENS.
-
Lets try to stay on topic ...
Baptism of Desire 101
Define Baptism of Desire...
The theory of men that a man can obtain eternal salvation thru a "(vow, votum, desire, will) for the Sacrament of Baptism, without ever being water Baptised.... and in the later times, without being a member of the Catholic Church.
Agree or disagree ?.....
-
On topic? The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that an adult can attain salvation without being baptized with water if he was working towards it and expecting to receive the Sacrament, but accidentally died preventing him.
Session and Chpt, and paragraph Of Trent Please....
-
The theory of men that a man can obtain eternal salvation thru a "(vow, votum, desire, will) for the Sacrament of Baptism, without ever being water Baptised.... and in the later times, without being a member of the Catholic Church.
Agree or disagree ?.....
I take it as a...... Disagree.. ??
-
Look up "accident" and "trent" here on Cathinfo, or google.
The burden of proof is in your court.. You supply the materal . Provide the Trent , session chpt, and Para.
-
The theory of men that a man can obtain eternal salvation thru a "(vow, votum, desire, will) for the Sacrament of Baptism, without ever being water Baptised.... and in the later times, without being a member of the Catholic Church.
Agree or disagree ?.....
Answer the question ,,, Agree or Disagree ??????????
-
Hey Nado ,,, I think I hear your mama calling you ,, Time to change the Diapers.. Nity nite
-
On topic? The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that an adult can attain salvation without being baptized with water if he was working towards it and expecting to receive the Sacrament, but accidentally died preventing him.
Session and Chpt, and paragraph Of Trent Please....
He is referring to this paragraph:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once,” p. 179: “But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages
Of course, first, here says nothing about actually reaching salvation, but only justification. Justification and salvation are two different things. Second, this cannot prove that Baptism of Desire is dogma simply because catechisms are not infallible and the narrative must be understood in light of what the Church has always taught: that there is only one Baptism for the remission of sins, and that of water and nobody can enter Heaven with the stain of original (or actual) sin on their souls which can only be remitted through Baptism (and Penance).
That catechisms are fallible and can contain errors is easy to prove. Even in this Catechism of Trent, there seems to be inconsistencies. Ask Nado if he is able to identify what the error is in the following paragraph, for example:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article III, “By the Holy Ghost,” p. 43: “But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”