re: Cornelius - He was baptised.  Why is the Sacrament of Baptism necessary for those who have supposedly had their sins remitted?  Because BOD by definition does not remit temporal punishment, does not confer the sacramental character, does not incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.  But we know also from the teaching of the popes that justification, since the promulgation of the Gospel (the founding of the Church) cannot be had without the Sacrament of Baptism.

To summarize, impius is defined as "denotes an impious or wicked person, someone guilty of actual sin, a person above the age of reason".  Impious can not be used in regard to infants who lack the use of reason.  St Robert Bellarmine made this distinction as well.  He refers to the infants as "puerorum" and to adults as "impiorum".  The use of the word impious cannot include those who lack the use of reason by definition.

But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.

Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.

I XavierSem confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics, but whem God reveals Himself to them, they can convert and be saved without baptism.

Clemens Maria,

Thank you for the specific reference to the video, which I had only watched some of, and agree that it is a well done.

But as to the argument about the "impious," I find the Dimond argument unconvincing. Session VI, Chapter 4 follows the description in Chapter 3 of men being "born unrighteous" and needing rebirth in Christ for justification, and that this rebirth involves a "translation" from the spiritual darkness incurred from Adam into the Kingdom of Light won by Christ.

Then Chapter 4 says that this "translation" cannot be accomplished without baptism "or the desire thereof." I see the context as manifestly including all men, since the injustice of all men by mere propagation after Adam's sin is the context. Of course, Session V on original sin spent some time talking about infants and their need of cleansing and expiation through remission of sin in Christ by virtue, again, of their merely being born as children of Adam. I think the context clearly includes children as the "impious" of Session VI, Chapter 4.

In Chapter 5, a distinction is introduced "for adults" or "in adults." They are of course a subset of the "impious" that require personal faith and preparation, etc.

If in fact children are "unrighteous" and have contracted "injustice as their own" (Session VI, Chapter III) through Adam it is not a stretch to call them "impious," especially in context.

The reference to Bellarmine is clever but strained and far from convincing (for me). If in fact "impious" cannot be used of "unrighteous" (etc.) children then I would think one could easily find a theological dictionary, commentary on Trent, or some other authority that indicates that - without having to resort to this reaching into a Bellarmine quote that does not prove the case.

By way of example, if I were to say, "the men were killed, but the children were sold into slavery" I am indeed distinguishing between the men and the children by using the word "men" to describe adult males but I am not saying thereby that children are not "men" in another sense (and of the class "men"): children are a distinct subset of men, and adults and children are distinguished subsets of men which, as Session VI goes on to indicate, requires different preparation and action for regeneration in adults (e.g. preparation and faith etc.), but both adults and children are "men" who are born unrighteous and in need of regeneration and translation into the kingdom of God in Christ, i.e. all likewise "impious" in the context of Trent.