Baptism of Desire and Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. Council of Trent 1545-1563

Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
   "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
   "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

The non-Catholic Feenyite heretics have no regard for the Council of Trent!

Correct.  Or the pretend it does not really teach what it teaches.

Quote from: Centroamerica

The non-Catholic Feenyite heretics have no regard for the Council of Trent!

The invincibly ignorant Muslims and Jews who, according to most of the BoDers, can be in the Church and be saved by "implicit desire" or believing in Rewarder God, have no regard not only for the Council of Trent, but also Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.

Once again: no one opposes the Thomistic BoD, we oppose the heretical understanding of BoD according to whch people can be saved in any religion without faith in Christ and the Trinity.  

Where have we taught one can be saved by implicit Faith?  Why do you make false accusations and then not admit your error?  

Baptism of Desire and Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. Council of Trent 1545-1563

Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
   "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
   "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

Don't you think it is interesting that Trent begins Canon 4 by decreeing the condemnation with anathema, for anyone who shall say that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation?

Also of interest is that the decree on the "Justification of a sinner" somehow always gets misread as if it says, "Salvation of a sinner".  

Where have we taught that you can be saved by implicit Faith.

I will not answer your question until you stop claiming that you "teach" things.  You used that word three times in your previous post.  You have taught nothing ... if you don't count heresy.

Please show me where I have taught that implicit faith saves.  Will will never answer my question because it will make you look bad and you care more about perception than reality.

Again, I will answer your question if you stop arrogantly claiming that you "teach" anything.  You have indeed repeatedly claimed that it's possible for someone to be saved by implicit faith.  You have, on the other hand, taught nothing.

You are such an incredibly arrogant bastard that you persist in using the word "teach" instead of simply admitting that you misspoke.  You absolutely refuse to accept any correction whatsoever, even on minute points like this.  Unless of course you actually believe that you have some kind of teaching authority.

Won't answer the question.  Falsely accuse us of believing in implicit faith for salvation then don't own up to the false accusation.

Won't answer the question.  Falsely accuse us of believing in implicit faith for salvation then don't own up to the false accusation.

At least you didn't use the word "teach" here.  You've prevaricated several times on what you yourself actually believe, but you have repeatedly stated that it's possible that people can be saved without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, i.e. through mere belief in a Rewarder God.  You have cited Pius IX and the fraudulent Suprema Haec in defense of your opinion.  In case you weren't aware, "implicit faith" is shorthand here on CI for Rewarder God theory (vs. "explicit faith" including at least belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation).  To my knowledge, no pre-V2 theologian ever proposed the notion that there need not be explicit faith even in the Rewarder God, so that's clearly not what's under discussion here.

You yourself have prevaricated because we've exposed your own self-serving contradiction many times.  You claim that it's impious not to follow St. Thomas' opinion.  But then you would go on about Rewarder God theory.  Until we point out that St. Thomas taught explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation and cite your own statements regarding St. Thomas' authority.  At which point you'll backtrack momentarily and claim that you PERSONALLY believe in explicit faith but continue to say the opposite is possible.  When that thread has been forgotten you resume promoting Rewarder God (="implicit faith") theory.  You're a slimly snake ... reminding me of those politicians who claim that they are PERSONALLY opposed to abortion.