CathInfo.com

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.

But, there can be no doubt that that the denial of Baptism of Desire, at least since the Council of Trent is heretical.

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.

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.

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.

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).