No my point is that there are many things that do not need explanation.  We can trust Holy Mother the Church.  Remember your Act of Faith?

On its face, it would seem to be a contradiction.  But so was Christ's advice for the man to sell all he owned and give it to the poor.  

Specifically regarding your question, I am sure it has been addressed somewhere.  However, I am not moved to take the time and effort to research it.  Why not?  Besides believing the Church as required, I also trust St. Thomas.  St. Thomas knew the scripture.  He also taught BOD.  Therefore, he must not of had a problem reconciling the contradiction.  That is good enough for me.

Ok.

Let's try this again.

The Council of Trent attached an anathema to anyone who twisted the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.

Therefore, you can trust Holy Mother Church to anathematize you if you twistthe words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.

That is de fide.

You yourself have admitted that BOD is probably not de fide.

Maybe it is just senta certa or something like that.

But in my mind de fide trumps senta certa.

All of the explanations for BOD -- which is not de fide -- I have ever heard appear to twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- which it is de fide you cannot do.

Can to give me an explanation for BOD -- not de fide -- which does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- de fide you are toast if you do that?

Do you even understand what I am asking you to do for me?

Let me explain.

Please tell me how BOD, which is not de fide, does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor, which it would be a de fide anathema to do?

Thank you.

The special attention given to my last response reveals that it is the Achilles Heel of Nadie's erroneous position. I will have to explain more in detail....soon.

Since you didn't read anything in this entire thread by your own admittance, how would you know if you got "special attention"?

Telesphorus wrote: if it really were absolutely the position of the Church that there is no salvation without water baptism it would go beyond the errors allowable for a Church catechism to say that catachumen deprived of Baptism could be saved - if something is not infallible it doesn't mean it can teach flagrant error.  

A catechism can contain errors. What you wrote you just made up. You are totally winging it.

Besides, believing that a catechumen who dies by accident may be saved if they had the intention and determination to receive Baptism and  repentance for past sins,  is not as you call it "a flagrant error or a heresy.
First of all, you have to find a catechumen who died before he was baptized. Second of all, he would have to be pre-justified before receiving baptism (the ordinary means for justification is baptism). There may have never been such a person, and that quote from Trent would still be correct. AND if there ever was such a person it would be like a handfull of people who even fit the bill of a catecuмen who died before he can be baptized. This extra ordinary means of salvation applies to numerically speaking, practically no one, so, it's never been of any importance to even discuss it.

The problem today is all the MUTANTS that spring from BOD of the catechumen, like implicit desire, implicit desire of those the don't want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, and who knows what else they invented since I started writing this posting! The quote from the catechism of Trent actually stands as evidence against all of those false BOD's, for it requires explicit faith and an an explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic. Those MUTANT BOD's are the ones that 99% of Catholics believe, and yet they hide behind quotes like that answer on the  Catechism of Trent, and St. Thomas, both of which do not teach the MUTANT BOD's.

Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:
“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time.  The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

You are trying to tell us all here that the Church allowed harmful things against the Faith to be spread throughout Christendom within the Roman Catechism. All Saints would reject such a notion.

Um...V2....the CCC.....the Novus Ordo Missae.......

Of course he thinks the Church allows harmful things against the Faith to be spread throughout Christendom.

I think so, as well.  Where we differ is I don't think it takes an anti-Pope to do it.

Always remember that Pope Honorius was a true Successor of Blessed Peter, as was Pope John XXII, as were the Borgia and Renaissance Popes.

Every single point that you made on your posting, every single one, is your own made up personal opinions, unsupported by any authoritive source.

Cupoertino wrote: The Church tells us not to speculate about individual people's salvation.

This is totally false. Prove it.  

Cupoertino wrote: the doctrine of baptism of desire says that a person can be essentially a Catholic internally and may have never externally given any sign of it, yet, then died before externalizing it. It's dying somewhere in the middle of the conversion process.

False. Prove it. Your line, goes against the quote on Catechism of Trent that on BOD, that says it must be an externalized desire. You just got started and you are already denying the catechism, just like I said you would.

Cupoertino wrote: Official Church law allows any priest to offer Mass privately for a non-Catholic whom he discerns was in good faith. This is official recognition by the infallible Church that baptism of desire exists.

False conclusion on the "official recognition". Also, you'll have to prove the tradition that Church law allows any priest to offer Mass privately for a non-Catholic, that's likely a 20th century thing.

Nadie, you have the wrong idea about things being infallible. Infallible means that the author was protected by God from erring against Faith or Morals upon writing it. There are loads of non-infallible writings that became effectively infallible because the Infallible Church promoted them to all the faithful for their safe instruction. Safe means infallible because no error against Faith or Morals can be safe.

 Strawman, and the whole thing is made up by you and False, you are totally winging it.

Nadie,

With all due respect, you have stated that certain teachings are dogmatic which are not.  I suggest you read a book on Dogmatic theology to learn about the different levels of certainty.  You will also find very few things are actually de fide.

Quote from: gunfighter

No my point is that there are many things that do not need explanation.  We can trust Holy Mother the Church.  Remember your Act of Faith?

On its face, it would seem to be a contradiction.  But so was Christ's advice for the man to sell all he owned and give it to the poor.  

Specifically regarding your question, I am sure it has been addressed somewhere.  However, I am not moved to take the time and effort to research it.  Why not?  Besides believing the Church as required, I also trust St. Thomas.  St. Thomas knew the scripture.  He also taught BOD.  Therefore, he must not of had a problem reconciling the contradiction.  That is good enough for me.

Ok.

Let's try this again.

The Council of Trent attached an anathema to anyone who twisted the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.

Therefore, you can trust Holy Mother Church to anathematize you if you twistthe words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor.

That is de fide.

You yourself have admitted that BOD is probably not de fide.

Maybe it is just senta certa or something like that.

But in my mind de fide trumps senta certa.

All of the explanations for BOD -- which is not de fide -- I have ever heard appear to twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- which it is de fide you cannot do.

Can to give me an explanation for BOD -- not de fide -- which does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor -- de fide you are toast if you do that?

Do you even understand what I am asking you to do for me?

Let me explain.

Please tell me how BOD, which is not de fide, does not twist the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3 into some sort of metaphor, which it would be a de fide anathema to do?

Thank you.

I will try again.  Many in the anti-BOD camp claim that those that believe in BOD are heretics and damned.

To hold this position, you must take one line out of the Council of Trent and interpret it like you do.  You must also hold that the Catholic must know all the docuмents issued over time and interpret them as you do.

As an analogy, if  a priest tells me doing "A" is not a sin, it is not sinful for me to act on his counsel.  If "A" is in fact a sin, I am not culpable for the sin.

Now apply it to BOD.  The Baltimore Catechism teaches BOD.  St. Thomas teaches BOD.  The Church has NEVER made a definitive pronouncement condemning BOD.  Thus, even if BOD is not true, I do not sin by holding the position it is valid.

I firmly believe ... all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.