I hope Saint Alphonsus does not get in trouble:

"Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'" 

 Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."

On the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."

What do you dispute above?

You keep saying a BOD occurs "By desire when sacramental baptism is impossible."

The only legitimate reason that you have to ignore me, is because I want you to answer questions - in this case, I have asked you REPEATEDLY to provide a scenario wherein it is impossible for God to Provide the sacrament to the presumed sincere individual.

All you said was that "theological experts and duly appointed authorities make the claim", Which is not an answer because no, "theological experts and duly appointed authorities" MOST CERTAINLY do not make that claim.

So no, you have not answered my question, all you did was make a false claim - which is not an answer.

So never mind about my "objection" and simply answer the honest question with an honest answer. That is all I am trying to get out of you. If I can ever get that out of you, we can then move on to the next point of argument.

I don't need to provide such a scenario.  Provide a scenario where it is impossible for God to cleanse the soul of Original Sin apart from water.

From:  An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Dublin, 1846.)

11.  Can. 4:  Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit."

12.  The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)

What do you dispute above?

Liguori does not contradict that.

The reason that yes, you do need to provide a scenario is because YOU keep repeating that a BOD occurs "By desire when sacramental baptism is impossible." - as if it is a matter of certain fact.

If you are not going to provide a scenario, then STOP SAYING THAT - agreed?

Circular reasoning.  The duly appointed authorities do not play games with God.  They do not temp the Lord teaching it is dogma that God baptizes people with water when baptism would otherwise be impossible.  

Show me where it is impossible for God to cleanse the soul of Original Sin apart from water.

If we are going to take St. Thomas Aquinas as an authority here, then we all agree that explicit faith is necessary for all for salvation.  The Doctor tells us that this is so important that God will send a messenger, even an angel, to get this faith to the person.  So, God can work a miracle to get the faith explicitly articulated to the perishing soul.  But God will not work the miracle to get that person baptism.  This would seem to be the issue: that God will work the one miracle, but not the other.

I reject this as absurd nonsense.

In Desire and Deception, Charles Coulombe argues that this absurdity comes from the Aristotelian notion that the intellect precedes the will.  I think he is entirely correct.

Explicit Faith is absolutely necessary for salvation.  We do not disagree.

Circular reasoning.  The duly appointed authorities do not play games with God.  They do not temp the Lord teaching it is dogma that God baptizes people with water when baptism would otherwise be impossible.  

Show me where it is impossible for God to cleanse the soul of Original Sin apart from water.

First we have got to get this first item straight - please correct me if I have this wrong.........Even though YOU KNOW that there are no "theological experts and duly appointed authorities [who] make that claim" that a BOD occurs "By desire when sacramental baptism is impossible", are you saying that YOU are *not* going to stop saying that a BOD occurs "By desire when sacramental baptism is impossible" even though you cannot provide any scenario whatsoever wherein it is impossible for God to Provide the sacrament to the presumed sincere individual?

Because you have never given me any scenario, we must therefore conclude that that is not taught by any expert or authority and is most certainly not only not a teaching of the Church, it is blasphemous statement against the sacrament and God in His Providence.

As such, don't you think you should either admit that whole idea is entirely false - or provide a scenario wherein it is impossible for God to Provide the sacrament to the presumed sincere individual?


  

 

St. Ambrose, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."