Stubborn, your line of argumentation is so totally wrong! Your syllogisms are so false, I don't know where to begin, except to say you really learned some false theological principles.

Stubborn, your line of argumentation is so totally wrong! Your syllogisms are so false, I don't know where to begin, except to say you really learned some false theological principles.

     I wish to issue a compliment to Quo Vadis Petre for his stand.

     After a couple hours of reading this entire thread from page 1 to page 31,
I admire your perseverance and fortitude with a wee bit of wisdom (j/k) gifts of the Holy Ghost.
     You stood firm in the line of fire and took a beating.

     Thank you,
 
            Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!

Stubborn, your line of argumentation is so totally wrong! Your syllogisms are so false, I don't know where to begin, except to say you really learned some false theological principles.

It is your line of argumentation which is totally wrong, your claim of false syllogisms are unsubstantiated.

You do not know where to begin, yet it is right there - you begin with the dogma, not the desire thereof.

No, I'm well aware of what Baltimore teaches, it is quite standard catechesis. My curiosity was piqued because you cited it and especially by what you highlighted. What, do you actually agree with it?

Now, Protestants are outside the Church. so

1) Do you think validly baptised Protestant infants are saved?

2) Do you think Protestants in the circuмstances described can make a perfect act of contrition and die without mortal sin on their souls?

as the passages in Baltimore indicate.

If so, are they saved inside or outside the Church?

Be careful before you answer.

I don't have to "be careful" before I answer you, I didn't go over what I posted from the teachers guide to the Baltimore catechism, which I only posted because you mentioned it:


1) A Protestant validly baptized as a child is a member of the Catholic Church till he reaches the age of reason. Same goes for all infants validly baptized in heretical and or shismatical sects. They go straight to heaven if they die as infants, same as any Catholoic.

2) To make a perfect act of contrition, a validly baptized Protestant must want to confess before a Catholic priest his sins, including his sin of heresy and schism. It can be done, but like the Baltimore catechism says it is very difficult to see. However, if it is done right, he is again a Catholic again, just like he was before the age of reason. If the person is sincere in God's eye, God will provide him a priest, so that the difficult perfect act of contrition will not be an obstacle. Moreover, God's grace "can convert these very stones into sons of Abraham", if a person is sincere in God's eye, they will be provided with everything they need to be saved, including a longer life, or even bringing them back from the dead just to be baptized!

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)

Dear Nishant,

Perhaps you missed my request?

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.

You don't honestly expect us to reject our belief in clear dogmas for those #'s, do you?

Quote from: Nishant

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.

whats worse is that all the while Trent clearly declares that both, without the sacrament - "or the desire thereof" ie or the desire for the sacrament, suffices for the grace of justification - let alone salvation. So there are two things that will not put anyone in the state of justification.......1) no sacrament = no grace of justification and 2) the desire alone of the sacrament = no grace of justification

Wow.

This is so confused, so contorted, so muddled and so incorrect that it's little wonder QVP responded as he did.

Trent says justification is not effected without baptism or the desire thereof. Therefore, of

1. Baptism
2. The desire of baptism

either both effect justification or none do. That's what "or" means.

if one effect justification (as Trent teaches), then both effect justification
if one doesn't effect justification (as you claim), then neither effect justification.

Which latter is evidently absurd, so the former is true.

It is justification - the translation from the state of death to the state of grace - that is always necessary.

Remember the case of St. Alphonsus is not comparable, because he affirmed BOD was a dogma after Trent allegedly dogmatically declared it a heresy and opposed to a dogma, which necessarily implies he was a "salvation heretic" as Richard Ibranyi schismatically affirms.

Bowler, your error is you imply God is bound to the sacraments, which is at least erroneous. In this way, you misunderstand or reject Baltimore too, as if God is bound to give to give His graces only through men and through the elements of His creation.

1. In truth, the Thomistic doctrine, approved and affirmed by Pope Pius IX on his own Apostolic Authority, which you reject, is that "God has bound us to the sacraments, while He is not Himself bound to them.

God does this to manifest the excellence of His power, that He is in no way dependent even on a priest as minister or the matter, water in the case of baptism and the confession of sins in penance, to give His grace, and expects us to acknowledge such power and will humbly rather than resist it pertinaciously.

Souls in invincible ignorance can be internally illumined by God and this efficacious virtue enlivened by charity in which the resolve to receive baptism is implicit saves them. This is taught by Pope Pius IX.

2. Scripture and Tradition teach Cornelius was justified before Baptism.

The Catechism of Trent teaches, why bother to quote what we both already know and what you simply reject, “On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time.  The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

3. If we who defended baptism of desire were indifferentists as you imply, we wouldn't bother correcting, God grant always with the proper and necessary patience and charity, your public denial of Catholic doctrine, your rejection of Catechisms and the Ordinary Magisterium and the like, which denial and rejection is, objectively speaking, extremely sinful.

Bowler, your error is you imply God is bound to the sacraments, which is at least erroneous. In this way, you misunderstand or reject Baltimore too, as if God is bound to give to give His graces only through men and through the elements of His creation.

1. In truth, the Thomistic doctrine, approved and affirmed by Pope Pius IX on his own Apostolic Authority, which you reject, is that "God has bound us to the sacraments, while He is not Himself bound to them.

God does this to manifest the excellence of His power, that He is in no way dependent even on a priest as minister or the matter, water in the case of baptism and the confession of sins in penance, to give His grace, and expects us to acknowledge such power and will humbly rather than resist it pertinaciously.

Souls in invincible ignorance can be internally illumined by God and this efficacious virtue enlivened by charity in which the resolve to receive baptism is implicit saves them. This is taught by Pope Pius IX.

Your analysis is one big strawman. And to top it off you are pontificating your own opinions. Quote authorities, quote dogma.

It is very clear what I believe, and it has nothing to do with your analysis. What I believe I keep repeating over and over (in short):

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)

2. Scripture and Tradition teach Cornelius was justified before Baptism.

The Catechism of Trent teaches, why bother to quote what we both already know and what you simply reject, “On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time.  The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Cornelius was EXACTLY an example of what St. Augustine teaches above, for he was not "snatched from his predestination to be baptized". God sent him an angel to tell Cornelius to send for Peter. God sent an angel and Peter to baptize Cornelius! “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

3. If we who defended baptism of desire were indifferentists as you imply, we wouldn't bother correcting,

Basically I said that if those people who claim to be strict school of  St. Thomas BODers would really be Thomists, they would go after the ALL forms Implicit faithers with same same fanaticism that they go after the strict EENSers. Bottom line is the only people they correct are strict EENSers.

By the way, one of your comments brought me to read some Ibranyi, of whom I know little. It appears that he is a strict Thomist for he calls both strict EENSers and ALL Implicit faithers heretics. He also calls St. Alphonsus Ligouri a heretic ONLY for calling Implicit faith an alternate opinion.

0