Quote

And that it's rare.

It is the case for unbaptized children who die below the age of reason. Whether it's rare for the unbaptized above the age of reason, or frequent, or does not happen at all is debatable.

#2) You don't even believe in God's Providence.  if a person was born into and lived in circuмstances which did not allow him a chance to know the faith, do you not think that this too was from the mercy of God?  Even Bishop Williamson taught this, that in such cases it's because God foreknew that such a person would not correspond accordingly and would end up meriting a worse eternal fate.  Most saints believe that the vast majority are lost, even of those who were exposed to the faith.  And their eternal fate is worse than that of those who were not exposed to the faith.

"The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

First of all, the known world HAD heard of the Jєωιѕн religion, being it had been around for 100s of years at that point.  Those that rejected the Jєωιѕн faith, stuck with their pagan religions of the devil.  Those that would not accept God the Father in the Jєωιѕн religion, would not accept His Son in the Catholic one.  So to argue that 99% of the world had not heard the Gospel is a lie.  


Trent explains that one can achieve justification by a desire for baptism (i.e. it's actually more than a desire, but a promise or vow).  This vow can be made explicitly (i.e. openly/publically) or implicitly (privately/silently).  But the desire/promise/vow must be made for baptism, specifically.  A desire simply for "God" or "heaven" by one who does not know or understand Baptism, is not sufficient.
.
St Alphonsus incorrectly says that BOD provides salvation, when Trent only says it provides justification.  St Alphonsus admits that this desire does not give the "wedding garment"/baptismal character (which also means that person is not a child of God, nor an heir to heaven) which Scripture says is necessary to enter heaven, yet he contradictorily says BOD "saves".  He also admits it does not remit the guilt for sin.  Ergo, a person who dies justified, without sacramental baptism, goes to Limbo.  In this sense, they are "saved" from eternal fire, though Limbo is part of hell.  This is the only explanation that makes doctrinal sense (at the present time, until and if the Church clarifies the matter in the future).

Umm...to protect your position, you are “correcting” St. Alphonsus on what Trent meant?
LMAO

I just don't get why everyone is being so rude to everyone else on this thread.  Like why can't we have a discussion/debate while assuming the best of each other, assuming everyone here wants to be a Catholic, and that nobody is *intentionally* being heretical?  Is there some dynamic here from before I was here that I don't really understand?

What it seems to boil down to is this, BODers believe catechisms are infallible teachings of the Church, they aren't, but they'll defend and take that belief to the grave with them of their own free will. Defined dogmas teach according to Scripture, John 3:5 to be specific, also Eph. 4:5.

Now,Eph 3:5 says; "One Lord, one faith, one baptism".

How many kinds of baptisms are there? The catechism answers "Three". This proves catechisms are fallible text books to everyone except BODers.

Trent says that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation is anathema. Since a BOD is not a sacrament, this proves no one can attain salvation via a BOD to everyone except BODers.

And the debate goes on. BODers quote saints as if they are the Church while the rest of us quote dogma because that really is the Church. Anyway, the same tired old debates have been going on on forums since the internet was invented I think - to the point that most forums have banned the subject completely - because the debates can get pretty heated.

If God damns a person who never had a chance to know the faith, in what way would he remain just?