MORE TO TORNPAGE:
Your argument is truly absurd. I say that with care and seriousness. It reveals that your ability to think clearly and honestly is severely impaired. Matatics refers to so-called “Catholic catechumens” who “qualify to receive the grace of the sacrament”. Thus, he’s referring to people who supposedly receive a so-called BOD. Of such people, he says: “they are unable… to receive the sacrament”, but that such an “occurrence would still require the existence of the sacrament”. When he says it “would still require the existence of the sacrament” in that context, obviously that means its “existence” in their individual reception of ‘BOD’. That’s the only meaning any honest person could take from it. Those words contradict his previous words that they are “unable to receive the sacrament”. Essentially he’s trying to have it both ways: they don’t receive the sacrament but it still exists for them in receiving BOD.
You, however, being deluded, argue that when he says it “would still require the existence of the sacrament”, that simply refers to the Sacrament of Baptism existing in general for people, but not existing or being present for them personally in the act through which they receive BOD. Your argument is ridiculous. No one on either side of this matter disputes that the Sacrament of Baptism exists in general. No one here disputes that the sacrament was instituted by Jesus. No one here questions that people have been baptized in history. So, for Matatics to say that when someone receives a BOD that “would still require the existence of the sacrament” obviously that doesn’t mean that the sacrament exists in general and that people know about its existence, but rather to its “existence” and presence in the act through which those “Catholic catechumens” supposedly get BOD. This is very obvious to any non-liar who can read (but apparently you don’t fit into that category).
Hence, Matatics clearly contradicts himself and demonstrates the falsity of his position when says 1) they are “unable… to receive the sacrament” but 2) this “would still require the existence of the sacrament of baptism”.
I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps because of my "delusion." But then, having said that, and in light of my "dishonesty," I do know what you're talking about it. Which, I guess, by my dishonestly saying that, I don't. Uh oh . . . now I do again . . .
If you actually read what I said, you'll know I was not speaking about the sacrament in general, but an individual and specific desire, an explicit desire, for it - which as the other guy (Ladislaus) - not sure if he's dishonest and deluded, maybe you said just a dumb heretic or something told you, makes the sacrament necessary. Which is, after all, the dogma at issue.
You should spend less time sharpening your axe. Put your time to better use . . . maybe breathing exercises for when you feel an anathema coming on . . . a reading course would definitely help.