Quote from: Stubborn

Not all the catechisms have error, the original one which explains the canons of the Council of Trent does not. It is the one all other catechisms should be compared against.

So are you saying that the Council of Trent is all inclusive?  In other words, it covers all of the Catholic Faith?

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Catechism from Trent explains OR THE DESIRE THEREOF:
Dispositions for baptism

Intention

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.


Necessity Of Confession [Doctrine on Perfect Contrition]

Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.

Quote from: 2Vermont

I don't think anyone is diminishing the Sacraments.  I know I'm not.  I tend to think that there are some who wish to depict others as diminishing the Sacrament.

Well the Church infallibly taught that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (I forget which council and I don't have the docuмentation in front of me) and you say that no, the sacraments are not necessary for salvation. Some would say that believing as you do diminishes the sacraments.

Quote from: MyrnaM

The point being, Jesus spoke about Baptism of water, as bower pointed out and  very soon after promised the good thief salvation.  Or do you deny that?

Sorry you missed the point.

Maybe they keep referencing it because it is true, did you ever think of that!

 

Again, Myrna. The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of desire because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law.  Therefore, the Good Thief constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism of water for salvation.

When Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to Hell. As Catholics know, no one entered heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection.
On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says. He did not descend to the Hell of the damned, but to the place in Hell called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who could not enter Heaven until after the Savior came.

To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.”

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: MyrnaM

The point being, Jesus spoke about Baptism of water, as bower pointed out and  very soon after promised the good thief salvation.  Or do you deny that?

Sorry you missed the point.

Maybe they keep referencing it because it is true, did you ever think of that!

 

Again, Myrna. The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of desire because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law.  Therefore, the Good Thief constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism of water for salvation.

When Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to Hell. As Catholics know, no one entered heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection.
On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says. He did not descend to the Hell of the damned, but to the place in Hell called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who could not enter Heaven until after the Savior came.

To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.”

The good thief is known as  Saint Dismas  he is the Good Thief crucified with Christ on Calvary.

He would not be a Saint today, if he was not promised salvation. Or do you believe he was Baptized WITH WATER, in Paradise?

Also, according to my Catholic books, it says no one knows for sure when Christ actually instituted the Sacrament of Baptism.  According to John 3, 5, read it!   Instituted then, could have been.   Who knows for sure.  

The point is AGAIN,  Christ told Nicademus about how important the Sacrament of water baptism was, and Christ proved that He, God was not bound by His own Sacraments.   Then or now!

I have proposed this challenge multiple times to those who claim that the rejection of BoD for catechumens is heresy.

Demonstrate --

1) how BoD was uninimously taught by the Church Fathers (which would indicate that it was revealed) or
2) how BoD derives implicitly and necessarily from other revealed Catholic doctrines

Let us prescind for now from the claim that Trent taught BoD.

NO ONE has been able to demonstrate this.  Consequently, BoD for catechumens remains nothing but a matter of speculative theology and simply cannot be dogma.

Just because more and more modern theologians happen to accept this, it means nothing, since the Church cannot have grown to a gradual awareness of a dogma over time, for nothing can be added to the Deposit of Revelation since the death of the Last Apostle.

With regard to 1), only St. Augustine floated the idea of BoD (I'm not speaking yet about BoB).  St. Augustine himself later forcefully rejected the same idea.  St. Gregory nαzιanzen explicitly rejected the notion.  Show me this alleged "unanimous teaching" of the Fathers on the notion of BoD.  It simply doesn't exist.  Modern BoD proponents dishonestly cite a couple Father who believed in BoB as proofs for BoD, but several of these same Fathers reject BoD in the same sentence by saying that BoB is the ONLY "exception" to the necessity of water Baptism.

No one has yet to demonstrate point #2.

BoD is nothing but speculative theology based on the feeling that anything else just wouldn't be "fair".  Father Peter Scott opens his promotion of BoD by stating that salvation is a FREE gift from God but then argues that God would be a "monster" if He were to refuse BoD. ???  That pseudo-theology argument from what seems just to us needs to be rejected out of hand.  St. Augustine called it a "vortex of confusion" when rejecting BoD towards the later part of his life.

I demand REAL theology ... Thomistic syllogism from other dogmas to prove the existence of BoD as a dogma.

In the Old Testament, people living were not guilty of breaking laws that they never learned.   Sound familiar!

The truth is when St. Joseph et al were living and dying, it was not yet revealed about water baptism, however when Christ was talking to Nicodemus, He revealed His Sacrament, then a short time later He favored St. Dismas with His grace, in an instant, promising him salvation, without the sacrament that He already revealed to Nicodemus and this event was recorded in the Bible for our benefit.   Giving us an example of His mercy and grace, showing us that He can favor whoever He will and that He is not bound by even His own Sacraments.  The Church is Christ, therefore the Church teaches us correctly. That is the difference.  

There is a good reason why certain events are recorded in the Bible, everything that every happened is not recorded, but John 3;5 IS.