No Pax, what you are talking about applies to infants, but according to canon law, even in danger of death an adult may not be baptized without having first expressed the desire to be baptized a Catholic

Stubborn, I thought you were saying that it was a sacrilege to be baptized in the protestant church.  Like PHYSICALLY INSIDE a protestant building.  That's why I argued that one can be baptized in a hospital bed, etc, with no sin.  ??  Misunderstanding there.
.
So you're saying that it's a sacrilege if a pagan wants to be baptized into the Lutheran faith?  Ok, I can see that argument.  But I would also argue that this person wouldn't be culpable for such a sin, as they are moving in the right direction; they are moving from paganism towards God, who will surely be pleased that they are accepting actual graces.  It wouldn't be correct to say that this pagan is WORSE, spiritually speaking (because of the sacrilege), as a Lutheran than as a pagan.  That makes no sense.  Even the protestants worship God, in a natural way, while pagans don't in any way.  At the time that they are baptized, they would be a material heretic, but since they "don't know what they don't know" their culpability is low, at that point.   My opinion is that this former pagan, being newly baptized, would be in the state of grace, since they have "accepted Christ into their life".  Only when they learn of the Catholic Faith, only when they learn of the differences (and limitations) of the Lutheran religion, and only after they reject the Catholic Truth, would they be guilty of a sacrilege of formal heresy.  

LOL. Ladislaus can't even bring himself to quote the whole of what the Pope said! Notice that the Pope includes Baptized Christians as well.

The First Teaching of His Holiness  Pope St. Pius X: A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" [Ninth Article]

Syllogism I from this teaching of Pope St. Pius X:

Major: A Baptized Person can belong to the Soul of the Church, while being separated from the Body of the Church.
Minor: But separated Christians in good faith manifestly fulfill the necessary conditions required and given by the Pope.
Conclusion: Hence, separated Christians in good faith, who sincerely seek the Truth etc, can belong to the Soul of the Church.
Corollary: The Dimondism of Ibranyi and Ladislaus is condemnable and worthy of censure from the Magisterium of the Church.

Ladislaus stubbornly rejects this conclusion for this foremost reason - he knows that, if he does, he will have no further reason/excuse, to avoid renouncing his schism and returning to the Roman Catholic Church, as he has admitted in the past.

The Second Teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: 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.

A Second Syllogism based on an A Fortiori principle:

Major: The Pope teaches that even Baptism itself can be supplied by an Act of Perfect Contrition, along with the Desire of Baptism.
Minor: If Contrition has that effect even before Baptism, then A Fortiori, Contrition will certainly have that Effect even after Baptism.
Conclusion: Therefore, just as Catechumens can enter the Church by Contrition before Baptism, Penitents can enter Her by Contrition after Baptism also [as indeed Pope St. Pius V teaches, against Michael Baius]
Corollary: Hence, all of Catechumens, wrongly excommunicated persons, separated Christians etc, can belong to the Church interiorly, even before reception, by Perfect Contrition and Desire to enter the Church.

Would you like me to paste in the multiple paragraphs that Msgr. Fenton wrote debunking the soul-body bifurcation of the Church?

Now Ladislaus, as if we not already tired of laughing, wants to quote Msgr. Fenton, to prove his erroneous ideas. Why don't you indeed go ahead and quote anything you like from Msgr. Fenton? I can already assure you blindly even without having read it that it will not support your theory and will support what I am saying. What I am saying is taught by St. Augustine and St. Robert, by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, by Msgr. Fenton and Pope Ven. Pius XII himself. Not to mention Pope St. Pius X, whose teaching you disregard. Msgr. Fenton, in the passages you're thinking of, was likely writing who had a mistakenly exaggerated idea of the soul. He himself clearly taught one could be spiritually united to the Church, while not being Her corporal member - which is nothing other than the true Thomistic distinction of Soul/Body in Church. Are you also going to claim St. Robert didn't teach it either next? LOL.

There's no way for the Church to judge, based on the internal forum, that they DO belong to the Church so as to give them the Sacraments.  You extrapolate from this mere inability of the Church to judge the internal forum into a false soul-body ecclesiological dichotomy.

This is another false claim. Also, according to Ladislaus, a separated Christian could then very well be in actual fact a Catholic, a corporal member of the Church and even deserving the Sacraments even before the reception of the Sacrament of Penance and visible entry into the Church - according to Ladislaus, there's only a pastoral presumption, and no more, against him receiving the Sacraments. But all this is false and in fact good faith can sometimes be judged externally; and here we will cite St. Augustine in proof, as I already did earlier on this thread: "though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm Note the last phrase. So St. Augustine believed that person to be in good faith.

Yet, St. Augustine did not suggest that person was to be given the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. As he did not belong to Her Body.

I can see the argument being made that the sacrilege is committed by the "pastor" or the "elders" who know that the Church is true and who lie to the people and preach against Catholicism every chance they get, all the while falsely interpreting the bible to support Protestantism's errors.  It makes no sense to me that a pagan, who formerly cared not for God, and who may have even mocked the idea of religion, once he decides to "convert to Christ" is in a worse shape, spiritually speaking, AFTER he is baptized (due to a sacrilege being committed) than before, when he didn't honor God at all as a pagan.  This makes no sense.

"Sin is the result of ignorance, weakness and indifference". This truth we pray every ninth day in the Holy Ghost Novena and is supported by other teachings of the Church, Scripture and Fathers.

Ignorance of the truth does not excuse any adult with the use of reason from sin, they may have less culpability than a Catholic - we do not know, but we do know a sin was committed. For all we know, they could be purposely ignorant by having shunned prior divine promptings toward the truth - (this is one of the effects of Original Sin, even after baptism) we do not know, but we do know a sin was committed. If this is false, then ignorance is eternal bliss and the best course to take is to keep 'em as ignorant as possible - and if this were accomplished, then no one ignorant of the true faith could ever sin, there would be salvation outside of the Church and the worst possible thing to have done was for Christ to send out the Apostles and all the missionaries etc.   

LOL. Ladislaus can't even bring himself to quote the whole of what the Pope said! Notice that the Pope includes Baptized Christians as well.

The First Teaching of His Holiness  Pope St. Pius X: A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" [Ninth Article]

Syllogism I from this teaching of Pope St. Pius X:

Major: A Baptized Person can belong to the Soul of the Church, while being separated from the Body of the Church.
Minor: But separated Christians in good faith manifestly fulfill the necessary conditions required and given by the Pope.
Conclusion: Hence, separated Christians in good faith, who sincerely seek the Truth etc, can belong to the Soul of the Church.
Corollary: The Dimondism of Ibranyi and Ladislaus is condemnable and worthy of censure from the Magisterium of the Church.

Ladislaus stubbornly rejects this conclusion for this foremost reason - he knows that, if he does, he will have no further reason/excuse, to avoid renouncing his schism and returning to the Roman Catholic Church, as he has admitted in the past.

The Second Teaching of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X: 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.

A Second Syllogism based on an A Fortiori principle:

Major: The Pope teaches that even Baptism itself can be supplied by an Act of Perfect Contrition, along with the Desire of Baptism.
Minor: If Contrition has that effect even before Baptism, then A Fortiori, Contrition will certainly have that Effect even after Baptism.
Conclusion: Therefore, just as Catechumens can enter the Church by Contrition before Baptism, Penitents can enter Her by Contrition after Baptism also [as indeed Pope St. Pius V teaches, against Michael Baius]
Corollary: Hence, all of Catechumens, wrongly excommunicated persons, separated Christians etc, can belong to the Church interiorly, even before reception, by Perfect Contrition and Desire to enter the Church.


Now Ladislaus, as if we not already tired of laughing, wants to quote Msgr. Fenton, to prove his erroneous ideas. Why don't you indeed go ahead and quote anything you like from Msgr. Fenton? I can already assure you blindly even without having read it that it will not support your theory and will support what I am saying. What I am saying is taught by St. Augustine and St. Robert, by St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, by Msgr. Fenton and Pope Ven. Pius XII himself. Not to mention Pope St. Pius X, whose teaching you disregard. Msgr. Fenton, in the passages you're thinking of, was likely writing who had a mistakenly exaggerated idea of the soul. He himself clearly taught one could be spiritually united to the Church, while not being Her corporal member - which is nothing other than the true Thomistic distinction of Soul/Body in Church. Are you also going to claim St. Robert didn't teach it either next? LOL.


This is another false claim. Also, according to Ladislaus, a separated Christian could then very well be in actual fact a Catholic, a corporal member of the Church and even deserving the Sacraments even before the reception of the Sacrament of Penance and visible entry into the Church - according to Ladislaus, there's only a pastoral presumption, and no more, against him receiving the Sacraments. But all this is false and in fact good faith can sometimes be judged externally; and here we will cite St. Augustine in proof, as I already did earlier on this thread: "though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm Note the last phrase. So St. Augustine believed that person to be in good faith.

Yet, St. Augustine did not suggest that person was to be given the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. As he did not belong to Her Body.

I am new here so I do not presume to have the expertise or knowledge to offer an informed opinion. I accept that I may well be wrong.

i) Three times a dogma has been decreed that there can be no salvation outside the Church. Pope Pius X teaching contradict three dogmas.

ii) If non-Catholics can be saved, then rejecting Vatican II is wrong because the whole underlying point of V2 is ecuмenism and inter-religious union. V2 would then makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church is only one of MANY roads to salvation.

iii) EENS is paramount because everything that I learned here, on this platform, depends on it. Why not be open to other reforms if we can reform three dogmas, and such critical ones? If dogmas can be surpassed by a Pope (Pius X or John XXII) then certainly doctrine can be surpassed too, and I must adhere to the reforms of V2.

iv) If non-Catholics can be saved, then they are in the Church (it becomes irrelevant if in the mystical body or the mystical soul) and, therefore, Vatican II is merely an expression of this reality.

If there can be no salvation outside the Church, and non-Catholics, including non Christians can be saved, then non-Catholics can be inside the Church. How is this different from Vatican II where the Church subsists of Catholics but can also include non-Catholics?

But...

Most important for me, as a father, if what Pope Pius X taught were to be true, then would it not be a safer bet for me, as a father, to keep my daughter in invincible ignorance of our Faith and simply teach her to be a good person?

Why would any one try to adhere to the very difficult precepts of our Faith? What would be the point? Would it not be safer and easier to be invincibly ignorant? Why would parents not hide the Truth for their children for their own sake?

Hi Ascanio. This can be a complicated theological dispute sometimes; but the real takeaway is this, (1) Pray, Work and Sacrifice for all to embrace the Catholic Faith, visibly enter the Church, and save their souls. (2) Love every person you meet and try to save them. And I would say, even, in trying to bring an erring person to the Faith, unless the contrary is evident (3) make allowance for possible good faith. That's my opinion. Others may disagree. 

Btw, I'm not saying - neither did the Pope - that good faith is sufficient for salvation. In order to be saved, we must die as Catholics, believing in Our Lord Jesus, and being devoted to our Immaculate Mother Mary. Let there be no doubt, that we must give our children the very best Catholic Education that we can provide, teach them from an early age, to (1) Pray the Rosary every day, (2) Wear the Scapular and be Totally Consecrated to the Immaculate Mother of God, (3) Complete the Nine First Fridays, the Five First Saturdays, and the Great Double Novena of Nine Fridays and Saturdays, to the Twin Hearts together, (4) learn the Faith, and (5) become holy.

This is not about any of that at all. The question here, which can be very important for a Catholic Missionary evangelizing Protestants, for e.g. is whether or not separated Christians can sometimes be in good faith. That is an important pastoral matter to be aware of, because if we imagine every Protestant is a formal heretic (when the Church says, those who die as heretics are lost, She is speaking of formal heretics; recall that St. Augustine said those in good faith are not to be accounted heretics), then sometimes that very wrong assumption itself may prevent their returning to the Catholic Faith. I will give the example of a great Catholic Missionary Fr. Arnold Damen, who successfully reconciled 10,000 Protestants to the Catholic Church. Would you agree he did a great Apostolic Work, which all Catholics can admire, be proud of, and strive to imitate in their own measure, as they can, in desiring and working for the conversion of their own friends? I'm not saying we should not work for the conversion of Protestants, Heaven forbid! What I'm saying is they may sometimes be in good faith, and a good Missionary will in fact take that into account, in trying to return them to the Catholic Fold.

"in 1875 remarked that "a letter which arrived while I was there, announced to Father Rector the happy conclusion of a mission at Scranton, with 12,000 Communions, 19 converts, 200 adult First Communions, etc., but I found it was scarcely minded, such items being commonplace there. In 1879, after twenty-two years of excursions from Chicago, it was reckoned that Father Damen had conducted in person 208 missions, averaging two weeks time for each; he had travelled on an average of 6,000 miles each year; he and his different bands of companions together had given 2,800,000 Holy Communions and had made 12,000 conversions to the Faith. At one church in New York a party of his missionaries in the course of four weeks distributed no less than 42,000 Holy Communions." Thomas Hughes, S.J., Ms. notice of Father Damen. It may be interesting to note that General Longstreet was converted during a mission given by Father Damen in New Orleans in February, 1877, and that twenty-seven of Father's converts had been Protestant ministers" https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/churchbible.shtml

Now, let's see how this Missionary Preaches: "Dearly Beloved Christians – When Our Divine Savior sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He that believeth and is Baptized," said the Son of the Living God, "shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16). Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned – or is damned. Hence, then, two conditions of salvation: Faith and Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith." 

So Father begins by calling all of them Christians, not heretics - because not all of them would have been formal heretics. Some would be only in material heresy, what is called good faith. Who does Father say are not Christians at all? Only those who say, they refuse to believe something, that they know Jesus Christ to have taught. "I am sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed. Therefore, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes. He must profess that true religion if he would be saved. But what is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right; for, if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all."

This is exactly what St. Thomas taught. A formal heretic knowingly denies something Our Lord has taught. He doesn't care what Scripture teaches, he'll believe whatever he likes rather in the Lord's Teaching. But one in material heresy, or good faith, when the Catholic Faith is sufficiently proposed to him, from the Scripture for e.g. will begin to have doubts in his wrong understanding, and then, if he is of good will, would be gradually enlightened by God about the full Truth, till he arrives at the Catholic Faith. This is something the Church has taught, just as She by Her same authority has taught EENS for those stubbornly separated from Her. How can we uphold one if we deny the other? Both are true.

God Bless.

Catholics can safely ignore the rantings of the schismatic XavierFem ... as well as the Modernist Praeter.

I am new here so I do not presume to have the expertise or knowledge to offer an informed opinion. I accept that I may well be wrong.

i) Three times a dogma has been decreed that there can be no salvation outside the Church. Pope Pius X teaching contradict three dogmas.

ii) If non-Catholics can be saved, then rejecting Vatican II is wrong because the whole underlying point of V2 is ecuмenism and inter-religious union. V2 would then makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church is only one of MANY roads to salvation.

iii) EENS is paramount because everything that I learned here, on this platform, depends on it. Why not be open to other reforms if we can reform three dogmas, and such critical ones? If dogmas can be surpassed by a Pope (Pius X or John XXII) then certainly doctrine can be surpassed too, and I must adhere to the reforms of V2.

iv) If non-Catholics can be saved, then they are in the Church (it becomes irrelevant if in the mystical body or the mystical soul) and, therefore, Vatican II is merely an expression of this reality.

If there can be no salvation outside the Church, and non-Catholics, including non Christians can be saved, then non-Catholics can be inside the Church. How is this different from Vatican II where the Church subsists of Catholics but can also include non-Catholics?

Very, very close.  Pope St. Pius X did not deny the dogma ... for several reasons.  Pope St. Pius X clearly taught that a "formal ignorance" (however sincere) was tantamount to formal heresy and was incompatible with supernatural faith.  Only a mere MATERIAL ignorance (with formal faith) is not incompatible with supernatural faith.  Mere belief in a Baptism of Desire does not necessarily undermine EENS ... provided that one holds it in the classical/Thomistic sense.

But, as for the rest, ...