[Lover of Truth]

I believe that most of the people on CI actually learn from what is being expounded here by those with an open mind to truth and doctrine. Unfortunately, there are some who will never learn anything because they have a "horse in the race".

I have read these EENS debates for years now, and have seen the gradual expansion of knowledge on the subject, which has come about as a result of the discussions by people who are seeking truth. At this point in time, I believe the best source for up to date information on the subject of EENS, is to be found on Cathinfo.

As it happens, anyone that has taken part in these debates for a time and  still believes that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, has "a horse in the race" regarding the salvation of non-Catholics. And that is the ONLY problem today, that long time Catholics on CI can still believe that "people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without baptism of blood".



 

What is "expounded" here is mass disagreement which leads to the total confusion of many.  This is not where the good willed should come to learn.  Please read the sound theology manuals, Denzinger, the Catechism of Trent and Catholic sources.  On the confusing issues of the day see where the traditional clergy are all in agreement whether SV or R & R such as they are on BOB/D and you will be safer than you would by learning from the contradictions posted here.

[Lover of Truth]

If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism.  So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.

I have no problem with this statement, if I understand it correctly. My only problem would be with the conditional particulate that starts the phrase. It's not an "if" clause. It is dogma, so it must be believed.

I would also state that nobody who dies outside of the Catholic Church is saved. If they are saved, they are saved in the Catholic Church. There is no debate on this issue. I follow the Church regarding interpretation of this and reject all personal interpretation of the Feenyite sects.

Ladislaus is not an authority on the issue.  Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit.  That is what the Church teaches.

[Ladislaus]

Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit.  That is what the Church teaches.

Except that no one in the new dispensation can have supernatural faith and perfect charity without Baptism; that's dogma defined quite clearly by Trent.

[Lover of Truth]

Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit.  That is what the Church teaches.

Except that no one in the new dispensation can have supernatural faith and perfect charity without Baptism; that's dogma defined quite clearly by Trent.

Incorrect.