And Stubborn, even under your false criteria of rejecting ordinary Magisterial teaching, a criterion which is false and impious and totally opposed to the Syllabus and other Popes, I gave you an example of an answer to your "challenge". Slightly edited.

Quote

Identify the premise you disagree with and we'll go from there.

And finally, just for the amusement of it, I will repeat St. Alphonsus's enlightened reasoning to meet your so called challenge, breaking it down for you since you will be inclined to deny one or more premise.

1. In the Council of Trent on baptism it is taught that justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire of it
2. "Or" does not mean "and". Or means that each alternative effects justification otherwise "or" would not be "or".
3. But the Council of Trent is dogmatic.
4. Therefore it is de fide that men are also saved by baptism of desire just as they are by water baptism.

This at least was St. Alphonsus' reasoning and it certainly is sound and defensible in itself.

Are #1-4 written by St. Alphonsus Ligouri or your interpretation?

Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who dies before he can be baptized, which is BOD of the catechumen. Trent says nothing about justification by implicit desire.

You don't understand how theological study proceeds in the Church....

Quote from: St. Alphonsus

“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?

The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.

O yeah,  that answers all of the inconsistencies detailed below! NOT.
Just a bunch of non-quotes and #'s. Post all of those opinions or it's just useless jibberish.


I follow the Fathers of the Church because their views do not require any "interpretation" of the clear dogmas on the subject of baptism and EENS.

Your beliefs require constant "interpretation" in every detail.

- They are not members of the Body of Christ, but they are related in a "mysterious way", thus they are not in the Church but they are in the Church some how.

-BOD is like baptism, but they don't receive the mark, and don't go straight to heaven

- God by His Grace can convert the person to become a catechumen and desire to be a Catholic, but he can't keep him alive to get water put on his head.

- God by His Grace can imbue internally a pagan with the knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, but he can't imbue him with the knowledge that he needs to be baptized to be saved.

- Where all the dogmatic decrees are in line with saying absolutely nobody can be saved, and even no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, they don't really mean that.

- where Trent never mentions anything about baptism of desire in the section on baptism, it still teaches baptism of desire

- where Trent in the section on baptism says: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”, it does not mean that.

- although it is constant tradition in the Fathers that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. Trent does not mean it that way.

I could go on and on.

Invented inconsistencies is what you specialize in bowler. bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials.

That is the second time you have detracted against my character with the same misunderstanding. There is not ONE person on CI that believes that I am a BODer. It is only you that came up with that conclusion.

So when Trent says the sacraments or the desire for them suffices, it isn't really saying so? One can turn the tables on you, such as this!

There you go again "telling us" what Trent says, rather than posting what Trent actually says, posting the quote itself.

No, you can't "turn the tables" on me, because if you really did, I would follow the clear truth. Trent does not anywhere say that "the sacraments or the desire for them suffices". Post the whole quote and you'll see that it further proves the case for the Fathers, that one must be baptized to be saved.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Invented inconsistencies is what you specialize in bowler. bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials.

That is the second time you have detracted against my character with the same misunderstanding. There is not ONE person on CI that believes that I am a BODer. It is only you that came up with that conclusion.

Misunderstanding? Your denial of BOD is simple Feeneyism. And yet you denied you were a Feeneyite! You may have some superficial differences with him, but you have the same attitude toward non-infallible teaching: ignoring it as though it were optional or even against defined dogma! And you have the same conclusion: denial of BOD.

And again, your sophisms are quite easy to see for any person truly open to the truth!

You didn't say that I denied being a "Feeneyite", you said "bowler, ultimately you do deny BOD in any way, despite your denials".

Feeneyite is a perjorative, a term of abuse, a derogatory term it connotes negativity and expresses contempt, distaste, a name slur that involves a insulting or disparaging innuendo. In that way the Fathers of the Church that I follow, and many other fine teachers from South America and Spain  can be redefined as a group of people considered to be theologically ignorant hicks. No, I don't accept your insults.

You'd be an ignorant untraveled man if you thought that everyone in the world who believes in EENS & John 3:15 as it is written forst learned their belief from a priest in Boston.

Quote from: bowler

There you go again "telling us" what Trent says, rather than posting what Trent actually says, posting the quote itself.

No, you can't "turn the tables" on me, because if you really did, I would follow the clear truth. Trent does not anywhere say that "the sacraments or the desire for them suffices". Post the whole quote and you'll see that it further proves the case for the Fathers, that one must be baptized to be saved.

"The pot calling the kettle black" argument, eh? You keep on telling us how Trent is to be interpreted, that BOD is condemned since BOD teaches baptism optional for salvation (like Stubborn), blah blah blah.

Childish response.

If you are going to shoot, then shoot. Don't talk. (Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez )


(post the quote from Trent like I said).

Childish response.

If you are going to shoot, then shoot. Don't talk. (Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez )


(post the quote from Trent like I said).

I already did, countless times, to you and Stubborn. And you ignore it, saying it was taken out of context. There's just no convincing any Feeneyites!

And BTW way to use an immoral movie (which I admittedly used to like, but hate now)!

I have a question for bowler. Bowler, do you believe that one can be justified without Baptism but one can not be saved without Baptism? Or do you believe that one can neither be justified nor saved without Baptism?

I don't believe one can be pre-sanctified and then die before he is baptized. Whether one can be pre-sanctified before baptism or not is another story. And remember, if Trent is talking about justification by desire, it is only talking about explicit desire, not implicit! The implicit BOD'ers and Implicit Faith'ers have then NOTHING in Trent!

The explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen believers  ask the ridiculous question: What happens to a catechumen who is sanctified before baptism, but dies by accident un-baptized? BOD is their answer. But the question is a strawman, because what God started, he can easily complete.
(It's  by far more difficult for God to bring people back from the dead just to be baptized, and God has done it hundreds of recorded times!)

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

This Canon is on the sacrament of baptism, that is the subject and title of the Session. It is very clear that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism of desire (BOD) is not a sacrament!

--------------------------

CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

This is very clear too, and concurs with the Canon 5 above.
---------------------------------------
Session VII (March 3, 1547)
Canons on the Sacraments in General

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.

(The heading of this Session is sacraments in General. That means all seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, penance, communion, matrimony, extreme unction, and the priesthood. Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, so please refrain from salivating at the sight of the word “desire”. One can’t become a priest or be married “by desire”.)

This says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. It also says that not all are necessary for every individual, therefore, at least one is necessary for salvation. this one can only be the sacrament of baptism, since that's exactly what the two Canons on the sacrament of baptism say.

The three canons concur with each other perfectly and clearly.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now, the proponents of BOD of the catechumen, ask the speculative question:

What happens to a catechumen:
1)who is sanctified by God before being baptized,
2)then dies unexpectedly,
3)while still in a state of grace,
4)without anyone around to baptize him?

This is total speculation, theory, supposition, and guesswork. What are the chances of such a possibility? Here's additional comments concerning points 1,2,3, and 4 above:

1) Lets say a person potentially can be sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, that Trent has said so, however, how long before baptism? It maybe one second before the water hits his head. If a person is sanctified one second before baptism.

2)3)4)- no one dies unexpectedly to God. Why would God sanctify someone, then take his life before anyone can baptize him?


The only answer to the speculative question above, that would fulfill all the requirements of Trent touched on by this question, is that, every person sanctified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, will be baptized. They cannot die unbaptized, God would not allow them to die. No such person has ever existed or will ever exist. This is what St. Augustine meant by:

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)