Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Memento

If  I understand your question correctly Stubborn, I would say that the Catechism of the Council of Trent means more than you understand it to mean. The  Rheims commentary was also written right around the same time. Those Fathers were explaining the faith to counteract the errors of the Protestants. If you read that commentary you will see it explains and defends the faith against the heretics.

That does not answer my question.

The commentary you reference was written some 20 years after the close of the Council which infallibly taught us:
CANON II.-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.
And then says:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

The catechism echoes the teachings with clearly taught explanations.

Now, one would expect the commentary to agree with the teaching of Trent, but for whoever will admit it, we can see that either the commentary is right or the Council's infallible teaching and Trent's catechism explaining it is right. They simply cannot both be right.

Per Canon II, unless we understand the words of Our Lord literally, we "wrest to some sort of metaphor" the words of Our Lord. A BOD "wrests the words of Our Lord" and is therefore is "some sort of metaphor". The sacrament is either  optional or the sacrament is necessary unto salvation - there is no other option in between.

So which teaching do you reject as error, Trent's or the commentary?

Quote from: SJB

What is quite possible is that you misunderstand the Catechism. Do you deny the possibility that you may be trusting yourself to the point of denying what has been explained for hundreds and hundreds of years?

That does not answer the question either.
You plainly were attempting to make the catechism teach something it does not teach, and even after it was pointed out to you the plain fact that the catechism in no way is teaching what you wanted it to teach, you and Memento and presumably all other BODers still reject what it actually teaches, presumably in favor of teachings that Trent was correcting - not that I think you will actually answer but I'll ask any way - why?  

The point is that you can't find any authority who EXPLAINS what you claim to "understand." It is always YOUR explanation that is presented as evidence.

I did tell you sir that I believe what the Church teaches. It is not so simple as you would like to paint it and that is why I quoted the theologians Joseph Pohle  and Arthur Preuss who wrote a 12 volume textbook on Moral theology.  If you read their text on explicit and implicit desire you will see that what it said. I will not reject the Church's teaching - I do not have the right . The footnotes give clear references to doctrines of the Fathers and other theologians of the Church.  

The Catechism Explained by Spirago and Clark does not even use the words universal, explicit or implicit faith on the page which one is directed to from the index. If they are not going to touch those words but give a broader explanation, I will not touch those words either. God has not given me the grace to fully understand it. I do understand this regarding explicit desire or implicit desire - if a soul chooses not to follow his heart -the natural law that is imprinted there -and does not ask about God then that soul has cut himself off from the truth and can advance no further. No, he would not be saved. 

Here is a simple explanation written for a simple one like me: 

"From the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Of course, this does not includes the teachings on desire and blood which as the Church definitely teaches, the catechumen, instructed in the faith and desiring the sacrament, if they should  die before they receive the sacrament, avail to the grace it would have brought them. It seems that I must say this because if I omit this minor point again, you might think that I have not included it.

But as I stated earlier on, the Church defines it further in more depth in her manuals written by theologians for those learned scholars and grace filled souls who can understand the mysteries of the faith more deeply. I submit to those teachings and hope I will understand the full import of the nuances someday. If I make it to heaven, I will.

With that said , the catechisms are written to teach the faith in a simplified concise manner for laymen. The Catechism of the Council of Trent was written for priests and therefore gives more advanced explanations. The commentary in the Rheims New Testament, written by priests who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, explains the faith to laypeople. Clerics could read Latin and did not need the English translation. So that commentary was written by expert Latinists who knew the faith much better than you (unless you are a saint, of course) or I and who also new the doctrines and dogma especially as were taught at the Council of Trent. Maybe you would like to take up their commentary with them? I certainly will not argue with it.

The Deposit of Faith is much greater than the sum total of Dogmatic pronouncements by the popes. Our submission to what the combined Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium teaches is the crux of the matter. 

Momento,

I read some of what you posted, I will print it and read the rest tonight. You have not answered my question. That is the third time I've asked you.

Quote

Thanks for the quote. It is talking about martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism.  Do you believe that martyrdom for the faith and explicit desire for the sacrament are required for salvation? Or do you reject that teaching and believe that any unbaptized person can be saved even if they have no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be martyred for the faith, nor belief in Christ and the Trinity?

Still does not answer the question - and BTW, Trent is the authority.