You're welcome. Now, can you answer my example: "Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water.

No argument from me here. Yet, if you have no water, juice or any other substitute for the water, then you will never have anything to drink and your thirst simply will never get quenched.

And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance.

The First Vatican Council condemns anyone from interpreting dogma, and they decree that dogmas always mean exactly what they say and always will: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding".

So now I have shown you what Trent actually said, given you infallible proof from V1 that Trent means exactly what they said, and that interpreting dogma is forbidden.

No matter who says it, it is simply wrong to say Trent taught a BOD when Trent clearly condemns with anathema anyone that says without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments, men obtain, through faith alone, the grace of justification. It is impossible, literally impossible to get any version of a BOD out of Trent.  

You evidently lack reading comprehension, yet imagine yourself to have mind-reading capabilities.

I have explained clearly what I believe. Your denial that BOD justifies places you in objective heresy.

I have cited authorities for what I believe word-for-word. Your argument is not with me but with them.

I answered your question above, yet your selective reading tendency did not allow you to see it.

Here it is in bold, so that even you do not miss it this time. I stand with St. Athanasius, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.

"No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation."

Now, go back and answer the authorities I cited. Nor did I say Baptism of Desire is a Sacrament.

First Authority: "St. Alphonsus: 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." http://www.baptismofdesire.com/

Second Authority: Also St. Alphonsus: Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” (The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11) https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/st-alphonsus-liguori-on-st-thomas-on-the-necessity-of-explicit-faith-in-the-trinity-and-the-redeemer/

Third Authority: H.H Pope St. Pius X: "17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."


What the Popes have said of St. Alphonsus and Moral Theology (where the Doctor teaches BOD is de fide after Trent) in particular:

"(Unique position) “In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI had «decreed it safe to follow St. Alphonsus’ opinion, even if you do not know the reason behind it – a badge of honour Rome has given no other saint.»” (Joseph Maier C.SS.R. in ‘The Priest’, Vol. 19, Sept., 1963).” (Source: Thirty-Three Doctors of the Church, Rengers C. O.F.M. Cap., Washington, 1993, p. 623)"

From: https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html

Leo XIII said the same thing about St Thomas's Summa despite it teaching against the Immaculate Conception. Not sure how this helps you to turn around and call people like Stubborn and Lad heretics. 
How about you answer my question about the Angelus Press book of the SSPX? What does ABSOLUTELY mean?

Ledeg, to what you asked on "absolutely necessary", here is the Catechism of St. Pius X. The Pope first says that Baptism is necessary,

16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

And then immєdιαtely in answering the next question, the same Saintly Pontiff explains that BOD/B can supply its absence.

17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Do you believe His Holiness Pope St. Pius X is contradicting himself from one question to the next? Or is teaching heresy here?

Ledeg, I answered your question in reply#284. Did you miss it? By way of further explanation, Baptism is said to be absolutely necessary because Baptism confers justification, and justification is absolutely necessary for salvation. Confirmation does not confer justification and thus is not absolutely necessary for salvation. But it confers many essential grace of the Holy Spirit and should be received when opportunity comes. That's what the SSPX source you cite means. The same SSPX site teaches both BOD and BOB.

St. Thomas also says the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and in responding to this very objection says that this means, "Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man can not be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57). [Article 2: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm]

Dr. Ott also teaches that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. And elsewhere that this can be supplied by BOD/BOB.

BTW: The source I cited said Rome has given this same endorsement to no one else. What words of Pope Leo XIII are you thinking of?

P.S: I did not call anyone a heretic. Let's try to have charity for one another as we discuss. I did say the opposite opinion to what St. Alphonsus says is de fide is objective heresy, though. Per the Popes, I can safely hold to such an opinion, even without reasons.

In that belief, the writer above stands with all the Fathers, Doctors and Saints (and also stands with all who do not believe in baptism of desire of the catechumen, or implicit baptism of desire, or implicit faith)

Thank you for recognizing that. I also agree with what you underlined. I said earlier I respect St. Benedict's Centre.

Do you? I know and like Br. Andre Marie in particular, respecting his zeal to bring non-Catholics to the Faith.

They don't deny Baptism of Desire. They hold all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism.

They also confess all who die in the State of Grace will be saved. Why do you not hold this more reasonable position also? I have no objection to that position and believe it is an acceptable Catholic position.

Someone who holds that does not need to begin by attacking Catechisms, Popes, and Doctors.

I reject Dimondism though (the opinion that Baptism of Desire does not exist, contradicted by St. Peter himself in Acts, see below). Dimond is only one step away from Ibranyi who called St. Alphonsus "a salvation heretic".

Simple Question:

Does the writer absolutely reject the teaching of salvation by Implicit Faith, the teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards? Yes or no?

Yes, I reject it. I confess the Athanasian Creed, in the sense St. Athanasius, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus etc did.

Now, can you answer my question: Have you read Fr. Haydock's commentary on Acts 10?

St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Fr. Haydock say that Cornelius received Baptism of Desire.

St. Peter and St. Luke in the passage in Acts themselves clearly express the same.

I cited the sources earlier in this thread and can cite them again if necessary.

I assume you're familiar with them. If not, I'll cite them again later. God Bless.

It seems to me that the same dynamic is going on here. The legitimate authority - popes, bishops, priests, Catholic theologians teaching and training those who will become the legitimate authority - can be rejected as interpreter when it speaks about the infallible authority, broadened for the Catholic to include de fide, infallible Magisterial statements as well as Scripture.

There has been no infallible statement on the specific question of salvific BOD (a question that has been debated since St Augustine's time in the 300s).  (Arguably, but still not de fide) Trent says that a catechumen can be justified if they vow to be baptized.  But 1) This is not an infallible statement, but part of the commentary on justification, 2) Trent does not say (either infallibly or in the commentary) that this justification is adequate for salvation, because 3) Trent infallibly says later that "true and natural water" is necessary for baptism, which is necessary for salvation.
.
Summary:
1.  Infallible - The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
2.  Infallible - True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism.
3.  Commentary - a catholic-in-training (i.e. catechumen) can possibly be justified if he sincerely vows to receive the sacrament.
4.  Not addressed - Trent does not discuss whether a justified, upbaptized person can enter heaven.
5.  Theological fact - Justification is not the same as salvation.  Justification does not impart the baptismal character.
.
Points #1 and 2 above are infallible and have been thrice repeated by councils and 100s of times repeated by Saints and other holy persons.  But points #3-5 are not "authoritative" teachings at all.  They are OPINIONS.  
.
The main logical flaw of BOD'ers is the assumption that a justified person gets to heaven.  The Church has never said this, in any official capacity.  No one has to believe this, even if St Augustine flip-flopped on the issue and St Thomas opined that they could be saved but would still have to go to purgatory (because they never received the sacrament) and St Bellarmine said that the idea that a justified but unbaptized person not getting to heaven was doctrinally logical, but "seems harsh".
.
Major - The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Minor - True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism.
Conclusion - True and natural water is necessary for salvation.
.
Major - All catholics who die justified/in the state of grace, attain salvation.
Minor - A catholic-in-training catechumen can obtain justification if he sincerely vows to receive baptism.
Conclusion - A justified catechumen is not a catholic, therefore as Fr Feeney rightly said, "I don't know" what happens to one if he dies before receiving the sacrament.  The Church has not told us clearly.

The main logical flaw of BOD'ers is the assumption that a justified person gets to heaven.

The BODer justifies a person, then kills him before God completes His work, then asks what happens to the person? Total insanity.

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)

I will come back to Archbishop +Lefebvre and Bishop +Fellay in a minute. Answer my question to you about Cornelius first, Last Trad.

St. Peter in Acts declared both that Our Lord Jesus is the Only Name by which we are saved, and that the Cornelius received BOD.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas both teach that Cornelius was justified by Baptism of Desire. Trent says those who die justified are saved.

I already said I don't consider St. Benedict's Centre's position to be heretical, but an acceptable Catholic position. Dimonds' is heretical.

Here is Fr. Haydock, Acts 10: "Can any man forbid water? &c. or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)"

Stubborn, you've cited Fr. Haydock at times. Do you deny this? This is why Trent is careful to add "or the desire thereof" in that passage.

You are not even summarizing Trent correctly. It is not AND but OR. Your own response to my question shows the inference of the Doctors is correct.

I said "without water, or at least some juice" my thirst cannot be quenched, and thus I cannot live. From this, you correctly deduced that juice can substitute for water.

Apply the same here. WATER=BAPTISM. "JUICE"=DESIRE. Hence Pope St. Pius X correctly teaches that the absence of Baptism can be supplied by the Baptism of Desire.

Trent did not say "WITHOUT BAPTISM AND WITHOUT ITS DESIRE" as the Dimonds absurdly and heretically teach, to their own perdition, and those who follow them.

Trent taught, without Baptism or without its Desire, there is no return to original justice. That means (1) without Baptism, there is no justification, OR without at least (2) Baptism of Desire, there is no justification.

Thus the Canon of Trent is correctly in reiterated in Canon Law "Baptism, in fact or at least in desire necessary for salvation unto all". Baptism, or its desire, is necessary for justification, and justification for salvation.

Vatican I condemned your idea that the Church can misunderstand Her own dogmas for 500 years before folks like the Dimonds come along and correct Her. The Church's traditional understanding of Dogma is Infallible.

Trent also teaches elsewhere that the justified are withing the Church and children of God. Quoting the Word of Christ, Trent dogmatically affirmed that those who die justified will certainly be saved, in due time.

See: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm by Rev. Fr. Francois Laisney.

"When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:

...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809]."

What else? Oh yes.

Ledeg, what you quoted says the Summa can be read with much spiritual profit. What I quoted says that St. Alphonsus' teaching in Moral Theology can be safely repeated by anyone, even those who don't know the reason. Beside, Pope St. Pius X and Pope Leo XIII, in their Catechisms, approved and made their known the doctrine of St. Alphonsus on Baptism of Desire. The Church has spoken on it.

I think that is all. God Bless.