Well yeah, you can't interpret necessary in an absolute way.

Congrats for the anathema.

For example, according to that logic, most baptized babies who die won't go to heaven.

Why?

They didn't receive the Eucharist, but Christ said unless you do you have no life in you.

He didn't make an exception.

So if you say baptized babies can go to heaven without the Eucharist, then you MUST mean that the Eucharist isn't REALLY necessary for salvation, right?

This is the kind of distinctions you are failing to make.

But Maria said that, in fact, BODomaniacs exploit John 6:53-54 to introduce an alleged absolute requirement for Salvation(who they do not even believe in anyway, as shown above!) in order to make an analogy with the Sacrament of Baptism, which is in stead declared infallibly as absolutely necessary and therefore debunk the infallible declaration. And in the process get anathematised.

WHY is baptism necessary? Because of grace.

But can grace be had without the sacrament?

In certain circuмstances yea.

But if it IS had without the sacrament, then the OBJECT of baptism has been accomplished and those justified in this way would be considered virtually baptized, by desire.

This is wrong.

You need to stick with the saints and leave your personal reasonings behind. Those enlightened by GOD far surpass your paltry reasonings and mine.

Error of the Jansenists #30 again. It's as if you don't care.

Not to mention those who LIVED during and right after Trent have SAID what Trent meant. Who are you to say otherwise?

This is false, as it does not apply to your grace distinction above.

Plus, it's a fallacious argument. In fact, those who are mostly remote from the time (a time where travel was difficult, means of communication rudimentary, books and docuмents rare and expensive) are more suited, especially since they have all the subsequent clarifications and testimonies of the Church, and later theologians.

It would be useful if the theologian contemporary to Trent had actually taken part in the Council, or anyway had first hand testimonies of Bishops, etc, or docuмent we do not have anymore.

Quote from: McCork

You actually said this:

Quote

BoDers, like me and St. Pius V, do not deny that. We deny that God WILL bring the Sacrament of baptism to every one of His elect.

then said:

Quote

The Church cannot do anything useless or harmful to doctrine in Her laws. If it were doctrinally true that catechumens went to hell always before baptism, then the law would be theologically harmful.

Quote

Let me expound on this.

What is in red is true because I was speaking of the actual Sacrament, not baptism of desire.

But.. that's circular reasoning at its best.
You DENY God WILL bring the actual Sacrament to all the ELECT, because of BOD.
And use this as a proof for BOD itself.

How else can you affirm that? How could you know?

It's not circular reasoning. The fact is, the Church teaches it. It is in the official catechisms approved by popes, and recognized in the official legislation of the Church. It starts right there. And if you have the true Faith, it really ends right there. Why are you questioning it?  Once you question the safety of papally approved catechisms, and the Church's official law, you are looking at not being in the true Church.

It's not circular reasoning. The fact is, the Church teaches it. It is in the official catechisms approved by popes, and recognized in the official legislation of the Church. It starts right there. And if you have the true Faith, it really ends right there. Why are you questioning it?  Once you question the safety of papally approved catechisms, and the Church's official law, you are looking at not being in the true Church.

Yes it is.

A) Church teaches BOD

B)Therefore not ALL elect will receive Sacrament of Baptism (which is also heretical and fallacious anyway in itself as a deduction)

C)BOD is a teaching of the Church =A)

Quote from: Gregory I

Here is how we know:

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html?m=1

Absurd and dangerous.
We KNOW demons have the ability to simulate godliness and fancy of appearing as False Christi or false Mariae.

Padre Pio himself told us he had difficulty in recognising the Devil's deception from the Real Apparitions, and could only do so carefully and slowly.

This is thrice wrong:
-you shouldn't take that website's testimony as valid of the fact and letter even being real
-the Jesuit shouldn't have publicised such a private apparition unbeknownst as to its validity to him personally
-the "lady in odour of sancity" shouldn't have taken what the Spirit told her as true on the surface, especially if it apparently went against Common Church Teaching*


*indirectly, the anecdote shows this, because if BOD for INFIDELS you embrace as true, was a common and accepted teaching, the Father wouldn't have been disconcerted as he was to begin with.


I'm always sceptical about this imaginific alleged intervention of Our Lady where she says absurd things such as:
"this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance" and seemingly order Christ around, as if He would not judge in the most Perfect and Just manner already but needed Mary's intervention to administer it.

And as if Mary's will would be actually and properly in contrast with God, and seemingly allowed to ignore Divine Law as her own whim.

These are sure and tell tale signs of False Apparitions.

Your self-reliance is breathtaking. You do realize the Pope has taught that we MUST adhere to the consensus of theologians, don't you?

Denzingers Sources of Catholic Dogma:


1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.


You need to deal with this Desmond. The mentality of "No one defined it, it isn't a dogma!" Is not Catholic. You are obliged to MORE. YOU have to submit to what all the theologians teach as true.

So when all the theologians in the world accept Pope Pius X Catechism as orthodox and it includes BOD in it, this is binding, for it is the teaching not only of all the theologians, but all the bishops of the world in union with the pope, and THAT is infallible.

You are like the black knight in Monty Python being totally de-limbed: "'Tis but a flesh wound!"

Quote from: McCork

It's not circular reasoning. The fact is, the Church teaches it. It is in the official catechisms approved by popes, and recognized in the official legislation of the Church. It starts right there. And if you have the true Faith, it really ends right there. Why are you questioning it?  Once you question the safety of papally approved catechisms, and the Church's official law, you are looking at not being in the true Church.

Yes it is.

A) Church teaches BOD

B)Therefore not ALL elect will receive Sacrament of Baptism (which is also heretical and fallacious anyway in itself as a deduction)

C)BOD is a teaching of the Church =A)

What you created is that of your own making.

The fact is, baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church, and it is included under the umbrella of the Sacrament, which is why it contains the word "baptism". As well as baptism of blood.

So, you reject the catechism and law of the Church, approved by popes, that reveal baptism of desire is a belief of the Church?

Quote from: McCork

What you created is that of your own making.

I'm sorry.

Quote

The fact is, baptism of desire is a teaching of the Church

It has been taught inside the Church, yes.

By the Church, firstly. Approved catechisms and canon law are expressions of the magisterium of the Church.

Quote from: McCork

and it is included under the umbrella of the Sacrament, which is why it contains the word "baptism".

Is this the actual reason?

I already said it was.

Quote from: McCork

As well as baptism of blood.

But baptism of blood is a BOD too.

Yes, and it's basically the same theological workings as when someone might have his sin forgiven directly by God by perfect contrition before going to Confession.

Quote from: McCork

So, you reject the catechism and law of the Church, approved by popes, that reveal baptism of desire is a belief of the Church?

What if I did? A catechism may very well contain errors, for a whole number of reasons.

What is more approved and held in high esteem, recommended century after century, than the Summa? Yet it contains error.

The Summa was the work of a theologian, not the work of a magisterial source designed by the Church for everyone to learn from.

A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.

Having said that, there's no problem with BOD, provided it's understood and defined in a certain manner.

The issue with BOD is that it seems to be utterly destructive and inevitably lead people to extend its potential applicability  to all sorts of erroneous circuмstances, to a point of completely abandoning the dogma of EENS.

What is even more worrying, is BODomaniacs seem hell bent in fiercely imposing their erroneous belief on others, as if rabid.

The Universal Salvationists of Vatican II (Novus Ordo) took it to an extreme, which is their fault, not the fault of the doctrine itself. Just like when people abuse marriage, it doesn't make marriage bad. Nor would some who starts to actually worship Our Lady be the fault of the doctrine of hyperdulia. The principle is, 'abuse does not argue against proper use'. It like the Protestants who blames the abuse of alcohol on any use of it.

A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.

Well, then, what about the fact that it was taught and believed always, everywhere, and by all Catholics for the first 1600 years of Church history that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation?  Would it not be impossible that this is wrong also?  Then how come you think some Jesuit speculator can come along in about the year 1600 and then claim only explicit belief in the Rewarder God is necessary?  Does that suddenly reopen the question?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: McCork

A catechism can contain error as soon as it is published, but it cannot if it has already made the rounds and a generation goes by without any controversy. It's impossible at that point.

Well, then, what about the fact that it was taught and believed always, everywhere, and by all Catholics for the first 1600 years of Church history that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation?  Would it not be impossible that this is wrong also?  Then how come you think some Jesuit speculator can come along in about the year 1600 and then claim only explicit belief in the Rewarder God is necessary?  Does that suddenly reopen the question?

If that is what you think about the first ~1600 years, then your conclusion must be that the Popes since St. Pius V were heretics.

Quote me a Pope who taught that explicit faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity are not necessary for salvation.  This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire but about the requirements for explicit faith.  There's the Pius IX quote which is badly misinterpreted and Suprema Haec.  SH is a spurious docuмent that doesn't even come from the pope.

Answer my original question, would you?  How could everyone believe this for 1600 years and not have it be infallible truth?  You're claiming that because BoD appears in a series of catechisms for about 150 years or so that this constitutes infallible dogma.  You're in contradiction with yourself but don't care.

On another note, for about 800 years, everyone believed with St. Augustine that unbaptized infants suffered pain of sense in hell ... until Abelard (who also by the way rejected BoD) came along and overturned this.  And the Church adopted his position as the Catholic one.  My point being that the widespread adoption of a speculative opinion by theologians is not tantamount to it being a defined infallible teaching of the Church ... as per your negative infallibility nonsense.