If you believe that Trent taught BoD, then Trent says that no one can be justified except by either the Sacrament or the Desire for it.  It Trent taught that, then BoB doesn't exist except in being reduced to BoD.  But that rejects 99% of all the theological speculation regarding BoB (rendering their entire theology on the subject suspect) because all these BoB theorists describe BoB as working quasi ex opere operato.  Also it refutes the stupid argument from the Holy Innocents, because then BoB cannot work ex opere operato on those who are not endowed with the use of reason.  Finally, it completely overturns the many Church Fathers who believed in BoB but at the same time explicitly rejected BoD.  It also rejects the stupid "three baptisms" garbage, because then there are really only TWO Baptisms.  Everywhere you turn, you BoD theorists make yourselves look more and more ridiculous and absurd and self-contradictory.

If you believe that Trent taught BoD, making the Sacrament or desire being either/or, then you would have Trent anathematizing itself in the canons where it declares that the Sacrament cannot justify without the cooperation of the will (="votum").  In fact, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION is to discuss the relationship between grace and free will, in particular the Sacramental grace and the proper cooperation and disposition of the will ... and NOT to teach BoD ... against the errors of the Protestants.  In fact, the point of the treatise on justification is to defend the NECESSITY of the Sacraments for salvation ... against the Protestant errors (which most of you BoD theorists actually hold and therefore fall under Trent's anathemas).  Despite Mr. Kramer's bloviations about anathemas, it's he who falls under Trent's anathema.  Ironic, isn't it?

If you believe that Trent taught BoD, you'd be making Trent say, "You can be saved by either the Sacrament OR the desire because Jesus taught that you need the Sacrament AND the desire."  You would make a mockery of the Magisterium.

Everwhere you turn BoB and BoD theology are nothing but absurd speculation that's self-contradictory.  Dimonds point out very well how St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were completely wrong about their explanation of BoD ... declaring that it does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin (which contradicts Church Magisterium regarding justification).

It's all MADE UP.  What says that BoB cannot confer the Baptismal character?  Why not?  God is not bound by His Sacraments after all?  Why CAN'T He imprint the Baptismal Character in an extraordinary way in BoB?

BoD is a sad joke that has led to nothing good whatsoever ... everywhere you turn it has heretical implications (God is bound by impossibility ... though not by the Sacraments, the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, gnostic Pelagianism, stupid self-contradictory arguments, religious indifferentism, Vatican II).

Tremendous!  :applause:

Quote from: Ambrose

You are wrong.  Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught.  If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.

Hmmm, let's see:

1) Trent taught whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.

You say salvation is rewarded without any sacrament at all, therefore you are, per Trent, anathema.


2)Trent taught that whoever says the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; is anathema.

Here again, you say "Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire", you are saying the sacrament is optional, therefore once again, per Trent, you are anathema.

Certainly we can agree that the above 2 bullet points are indisputable evidence that per Trent, you are anathema.


When asked why you refuse to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, you answer that "you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire". So according to you, the Church, wholly and entirely refuses to defend the necessity of the sacraments for our hope of salvation.

My guess is that the day you stop dancing around and explicitly admit that the sacraments are not needed for salvation, that one can make it to heaven without any of them and therefore without the Church, will be the day you wake up.

We know that you and all NSAAers do not believe that the road to hell is the one that's paved with good intentions, not the road to heaven, but if you could believe it, that would be big step in the right direction for you.

1.  The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent.  Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear.  Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent.  Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.  

2.  Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized.  Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.  

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

You are wrong.  Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire as the Council of Trent has taught.  If you reject Baptism of Desire you profess heresy against the Catholic Faith.

Hmmm, let's see:

1) Trent taught whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.

You say salvation is rewarded without any sacrament at all, therefore you are, per Trent, anathema.


2)Trent taught that whoever says the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; is anathema.

Here again, you say "Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire", you are saying the sacrament is optional, therefore once again, per Trent, you are anathema.

Certainly we can agree that the above 2 bullet points are indisputable evidence that per Trent, you are anathema.


When asked why you refuse to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, you answer that "you are defending Church teaching" - even adding "whole and entire". So according to you, the Church, wholly and entirely refuses to defend the necessity of the sacraments for our hope of salvation.

My guess is that the day you stop dancing around and explicitly admit that the sacraments are not needed for salvation, that one can make it to heaven without any of them and therefore without the Church, will be the day you wake up.

We know that you and all NSAAers do not believe that the road to hell is the one that's paved with good intentions, not the road to heaven, but if you could believe it, that would be big step in the right direction for you.

1.  The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent.  Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear.  Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent.  Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.

Say what?

Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.

2.  Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized.  Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.  

Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.

Ladislaus wrote:

Yes, there can be doubt.  There's actually no reasonable way to reconcile Trent with your interpretation of it.  I've pointed this out multiple times now, but you constantly ignore my arguments.  NOT ONE PERSON has offered a refutation of my arguments regarding the correct interpretation of Trent.  I'm going to go ahead and write up a lengthy, thorough study of the treatise on justification just to refute this nonsense and also so that I can just link to it in the future and not have to keep retyping everything.

You really should not write "a lengthy, thorough study of the treatise on justification."  You do not have the training to deal with such complex topics.  The Doctors of the Church and the dogmatic theologians have already explained this matter in depth.  You are not going to do any better than them, rather, from your previous posts, all you will accomplish is to proliferation of the heresy of denying Baptism of Desire.

If you ever come to your senses, you will deeply regret your attack against Catholic doctrine, and the harm that your public writing has done to souls.  

Ambrose wrote:

The teaching of Baptism of Desire was taught explicitly by the Council, and this is why St. Alphonsus gives it the note of de fide.

Ladislaus wrote:

St. Alphonsus thought it was taught by Trent.  He can assign de fide to it all he wants, but that doesn't make it de fide.  Theologians commonly disagree about the theological note to be assigned to certain teachings.  We saw that, for instance, in the dispute about the infallibility of canonizations, where opinions on the theological note were all over the map.

Moreover, Ambrose, we have pointed out that your interpretation of BoD and its extension to Catholics is in fact tantamount to a direct heretical denial of EENS and renders you schismatic because then you have no theological basis whatsoever to reject the teachings of Vatican II.

I have big news for you:  St. Alphonsus was much smarter than you, he was highly trained and commissioned to write on matters of theology, and he understood this better than you.  You are an untrained layman, St. Alphonsus was a master theologian, and given the title, Doctor of the Church.

St. Alphonsus gave the note of de fide to Baptism of Desire for a reason:  because Baptism of Desire is de fide.  If you reject it, you profess heresy, and if you are culpable, (not ignorant) then you are a heretic and have severed yourself from the Catholic Church.  

I hope for your sake that you are ignorant, I truly hope that you will not go to Hell.

Their best argument video (opinion) rests in the following:

St Thomas

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith. Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. Nor does the synod intend by this judgment to prejudice the person of the said author since, though duly summoned, he gave reasons for being absent, and in some of his writings and elsewhere he has submitted his teaching to the church's judgment. Further, this holy synod orders all archbishops, bishops, chancellors of universities and inquisitors of heresy, who are responsible in this matter, to ensure that nobody has the said book and supporting treatises or presumes to keep them with him, rather he shall consign them to these authorities, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the law: otherwise let such persons be proceeded against with canonical censures.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм17.htm

Quote from: Ambrose

Ambrose wrote:

Quote

1.  The Sacraments or the Desire for them, as taught by Trent.  Your attempt to write words out of Trent, will not make them disappear.  Baptism of Desire was explicitly and clearly taught by the Council of Trent.  Your saying otherwise, does not make it true.

Stubborn wrote:

Quote

Say what?

Is the sacrament of baptism an option or isn't it?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.

The sacrament is not an option.  Every person on earth has the obligation to get Baptized.  Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the necessity of Baptism as the as the person in question is not choosing Baptism of Desire, he is choosing Baptism, but has died prior to Baptism.

Ambrose wrote:

Quote

2.  Baptism is not optional, all are obligation to get Baptized.  Baptism of Desire is not making it an option.  

Stubborn wrote:

Quote

Did Trent teach the sacrament is a necessity or did Trent teach the sacrament is optional?
Answer the question or admit your dishonesty.

The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent.  There is no option.  

Unreal. You are really a piece of work.

Trent: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Ambrose: The sacrament is necessary in fact or desire as taught by the Council of Trent.  There is no option.

Trent according to Ambrose: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is necessary, that is, not optional unto salvation; let him be anathema.





Trent CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Trent according to Ambrose: CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are necessary unto salvation, not superfluous; and that, with or without them, men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, salvation; let him be anathema.


Ambrose aptly (and repeatedly) demonstrates how error becomes dogma and dogma error.

Can you read?   You cited Canon IV which says:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Stubborn,

Why won't you reply to my post:

These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith. Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. Nor does the synod intend by this judgment to prejudice the person of the said author since, though duly summoned, he gave reasons for being absent, and in some of his writings and elsewhere he has submitted his teaching to the church's judgment. Further, this holy synod orders all archbishops, bishops, chancellors of universities and inquisitors of heresy, who are responsible in this matter, to ensure that nobody has the said book and supporting treatises or presumes to keep them with him, rather he shall consign them to these authorities, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the law: otherwise let such persons be proceeded against with canonical censures.