Lot and Abraham were nephew and uncle........cut myself off in typing.darn phone.......speaking of quoting saints:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

'Lover of truth' your assertions are completely heretical.  After work I am going to dissect your entire discourse, and you will see that 'obstinate wrangling' as you call it, is firmly bound up with the Extraordinary Magisterium, and that you are in fact a Modernist.

Good day.

Quote from: Vladimir

That is actually quite to the contrary. They argue that infidels can enter the Church before death through extraordinary (and of course supernatural) means.

But they cannot.  Yet the heretics refuse to accept it.  Some of them even go as far as to say that explicit belief in Jesus Christ is not even necessary (invincible ignorance).  Thus, objectively, they are trying to put non-Catholics in heaven.

Quite the contrary, fool, they refer to the subjective possibility of such a case.  No one objectively puts a "non-catholic" qua "non-catholic" in heaven.  You have to force ideas on people so you can unjustly condemn them like the Pharisees of old who through a mock trial unjustly condemned Jesus Christ.  

His argument amounts to implying that one would contradict the act of Redemption itself were one to suggest that God could have wrought the Redemption in another way.  For if the mere possibility existed, then, by his warped logic, it would negate the actuality of the act itself.  

He also doesn't seem to realize that, far from detracting from the sacrament of baptism, the doctrine regarding the desire for baptism actually affirms its necessity in that no man is justified without some kind of reference to the sacrament itself.  The fact that God may supply for the effects doesn't affect its necessity as a means of regeneration.  God supplies in both instances.  

It hasn't seemed to have occurred to you that God is not bound by his sacraments...

"Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven;"

God is perfect justice.  Will you accuse Him of contravening His own laws and decrees?  You suggest that He is able to do so.  How many times to I have to say that YES God, by virtue of His divinity is capable of ALL things whatsoever, but by virtue of His justice, we know that there are certain things He WILL NOT DO.

One of them is justify the unbaptized.  By the power of His divinity He can do it, but He will not transgress His justice.  This concept can be seen in the last book of the Bible.

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it. And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof... And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood...

God the Father holds the book in His right hand.  Can he open it?  By the power of His divinity, of course He can.  Is he WORTHY ACCORDING TO JUSTICE?  NO.  God the Son is He who is worthy according to justice, thus God the Son opens the book.  This is an excellent example of how God HOLDS HIMSELF BOUND TO JUSTICE.

Furthermore, he made an oath in St. John 3:5, that we all know so well.  He states it in a manner of speaking that encompasses all of mankind and admits of no exceptions, and His declarations in the Extraordinary Magisterium also back up this understanding.

People who say things like "We leave judgment to God," as if to imply that we CANNOT KNOW God's judgment on such matters are ignoring the judgments He has already given, through the Holy Roman Pontiffs Clement V, Eugene IV, and Paul III.  These judgments BIND the consciences of Catholics, just as they BIND the conduct of God in heaven, because it is He, God Himself, who has said it.

If He justified someone who was not baptized in real and natural water after the obsolescence of the Old Testament Law of the Israelites, He would render His own decrees false, at least in individual cases.

Why is it so hard to believe that God will INFALLIBLY ADHERE TO HIS OWN IRREVOCABLE LAW?

What an obscure post you have made.

Your argument would hold if one were to think that baptism itself does not effect what God said it would.

Yes.  It also holds because people think that it is possible achieve what can truly only be wrought by the one baptism, the sacrament of faith, which administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which regenerates ALL who are baptized in Christ, and is the instrumental cause of justification, and makes them a member of the Church, outside of which, if they die, they go straightaway into the everlasting fire.

This is a matter of Justice and Promise.

Yes.

But your argument fails because it does not address the fact that God can without injustice act outside of His sacraments.

Yes He can, but for this one sacrament He closed the door.  It is clear from reading the simple and plain meaning of these decrees that He will not act outside of His sacraments.  We know He is all powerful, and thus has no NEED to act outside of His PROMISE.  He can get the sacrament of baptism in real and natural water to anybody He wills.

Furthermore, if a person makes a promise, and then breaks it behind your back, that is UNJUST, no matter how powerful the person breaking the promise is.  My argument does not fail at all, since it addresses this very fact, contrary to the assertion in the above quote that it does not.  Anybody who reads my previous post above will see that it does.  Anybody except the one who made the assertion, that is.

This in no way nullfies the essence of the sacraments themselves.  Do you understand yet?

Nobody ever said that belief in baptism of desire would nullify the sacrament of baptism, as though the sacrament would not still effect what it effects.  Everybody IS trying to say, however, that a person can die unbaptized, but yet the mere fact that the sacrament of baptism actually exists at all is enough to save such a person, though they didn't actually receive it, but only desired to.  Ridiculous!  They must physically receive the sacrament while in the flesh.  This just follows logically from the decrees.

Why did you ignore my other post?

The person quoted above unjustly put words into my mouth, for one:

His argument amounts to implying that one would contradict the act of Redemption itself were one to suggest that God could have wrought the Redemption in another way. For if the mere possibility existed, then, by his warped logic, it would negate the actuality of the act itself.

I never said anything like this.  I said one would contradict the infallible decrees of Holy Mother Church, the meanings of which are to be firmly held as they are declared, according to the objective meaning of the words out of the pope's mouth, the letters on the page.  This is how a person is to understand a dogmatic decree if they do not want to fall under the condemned errors of the Modernists.

By the "logic" of your argument, you'd also have to accuse God of "contradicting" the laws of nature when he temporarily suspends said laws while working a miracle. You'd decry Lazarus as an imposter for attempt to contravene the universal law of death.

The above quote is also an irrelevant red herring.  God never decreed that the laws of nature would remain constant and unbending at all times, so of course He can make exceptions to these laws at His pleasure.  This is not heretical.  Besides, Lazarus did die.  He never contravened the law of death.  He died once as was appointed.  Then he was raised by God, and, presumably, died again later on.

Hence, the above quote is nonsense and has nothing to do with God's decrees in the realm of faith.  When He says something that leaves no room for exceptions (Cantate Domino) we don't make exceptions.

I mean, a miracle is one thing, but miracles do NOT contradict DOGMA!

Goodness gracious!

If I said that it was "possible" for God to pluck all the Muslims out of hell and stick them in heaven, what I be accused of heresy?  I sure hope so!  Of course by the power of His divinity, I certainly believe He can.  But it would go against His promise, it would be unjust and therefore He would not do it!

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

 :shocked:

This quote says a person can get into heaven without the baptismal character, which identifies them as a Christian!  That they can get into heaven without being having passed through the gateway to the other sacraments, and therefore not permitted to receive absolution for sins or to partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ!  It means that they will go to purgatory, only to suffer TO THE MAX, because the centuries old Tradition of the Church PROHIBITS offering sacrifices for their souls!  This is all rubbish!