Which other Sacrament must a five-month old baby have other than Baptism in order for Baptism in order to be Saved? Or did the Church err by saying the Sacraments are necessary?
Seriously?
This is a generic statement that the Sacraments in general are necessary for salvation. For some, Baptism suffices. For others, the Sacrament of Confession might also be needed. Holy Communion is necessary by Precept.
When one receives Baptism, one becomes part of the Sacramental life of the Church and becomes eligible to receive the Sacraments.
Stubborn uses the quote (which clearly uses sacraments in the plural) to deny BOD. I'm merely pointing out his inconsistent logic. He takes a statement a applies it in one way to one Sacrament and in another way to all the rest. As the Protestants do with Bible verses. Of course he will not grant the point.
The inconsistency is yours, because a BOD is not a sacrament, hence, it is TRENT who denies a BOD - and does so infallibly. Trent decreed that if anyone says that the sacraments are not necessary they are anathema, which is EXACTLY what you say, which means you are anathema because you say EXACTLY the thing Trent anathematizes.
No matter what other meaning you choose to give to the infallible canon, you preach up one side and down the other that no sacrament is necessary for salvation - you reject the solemn teaching of the Church no matter which way you try to spin it.
Please refrain from doing that from now on.
Your attempt to use "sacraments in the plural" as grounds that the canon has no meaning AT ALL, only further sinks your excuses because no matter how you look at it, no matter how you try to weasel, a BOD is not a sacrament and the canon explicitly decrees that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
Topic: The Church Fathers Against the Feeneyites (Read 5937 times)