CathInfo.com

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