But that was not Michael Bajus' point. It was what I said, and in that sense it was condemned, which means the negation of what he meant is true.

As to your question, Gregory, the likely answer is Trent.

You are wrong about St.Ambrose, and like St.Gregory you quoted earlier, if you'd read the whole quote, you'd see that for yourself.

"Unless a man be born again... No one is excepted, not
the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however,
have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know
whether they have the honor of the kingdom.

This is what I mean by not settled. It is somewhat similar with St.Gregory. Finally, like I said before, God has bound us to the sacraments.

Exactly, unless a catechumen is baptized, he has no charity.

I would like to know WHO settled the BOD issue, and WHEN.

For people to be claiming it's DOGMA or de fide or such, you HAVE to be able to point to either:

A. The Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the universal teaching of theologians that such and such is REVEALED.

B. A solemn pronouncement either ex cathedra or from an ecuмenical council.


Where?

Quote

My answer remains what it was, souls invincibly ignorant of the Christian religion and the Catholic Church - such a person, if he is internally illumined, will be at least baptized by desire. And that will be sufficient.

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament
of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by
some necessity.”

Reconcile this.

Yes, eventually this Feenyite mindset must declare the Catechism of the Council of Trent to have taught doctrinal error (ie., in voto), at which point the Feenyite is transformed into his sedevacantist cousin (since a true pope could not have promulgated a harmful catechism), and finally conclude that we have not had a true pope since...?

Problem: Popes and catechisms don't cease to be true and legitimate just because YOU DON'T GET IT.

(since a true pope could not have promulgated a harmful catechism)

Do you accept the CCC then?

Quote from: Gregory I

Exactly, unless a catechumen is baptized, he has no charity.

I would like to know WHO settled the BOD issue, and WHEN.

For people to be claiming it's DOGMA or de fide or such, you HAVE to be able to point to either:

A. The Unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the universal teaching of theologians that such and such is REVEALED.

B. A solemn pronouncement either ex cathedra or from an ecuмenical council.


Where?

Quote

My answer remains what it was, souls invincibly ignorant of the Christian religion and the Catholic Church - such a person, if he is internally illumined, will be at least baptized by desire. And that will be sufficient.

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament
of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by
some necessity.”

Reconcile this.

Yes, eventually this Feenyite mindset must declare the Catechism of the Council of Trent to have taught doctrinal error (ie., in voto), ...

Even if one were to concede that the CCT teaches that one can be saved without being baptized, the CCT is only teaching explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, which is not the problem today, as 99% BODers believe that a non-Catholic can be saved with no explicit desire to be a Catholic.

Read below:

  It is a false and heretical error to hold that the Catechism of The Council of Trent is in error.

Strawman.

Your focusing on this point that  "It is an error to hold that the Catechism of The Council of Trent is in error", is irrelevent, it's a total strawman.

One can't contradict clear dogmas and even in this case even contradict what the CCT itself says clearly, with one unclear line from the CCT. The way Catholics know thruth is by interpreting unclear quotes according to defined clear dogmas. If the dogmas failed to define, then they have failed in their intended purpose and are useless. We don't interpret infallible dogmas by fallible unclear interpretations. If we did, then all dogmas are useless.

THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

In the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so-called terms “three baptisms,” or “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is only one unclear paragraph which says “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness, with which the BODers try to re-interpretdogmas on EENS & baptism and even re-interpret all the clear teachings of the CCT itself!

Most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly exluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.  

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
     “Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind.  The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

     This means that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions!  It excludes any idea of salvation without water baptism.  It also means that John 3:5 is understood literally.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “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 (Jn. 3:5).”

     This clearly means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26).  Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”

     The Catechism of Trent also teaches that if there is danger of death for an adult, Baptism must not be deferred.  

Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”

   
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,

the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
     
Notice that the Catechism teaches that water is “within the reach of all,” a phrase which excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all.  Also notice that the Catechism declares that the Sacrament is necessary for all for salvation!  This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism.  Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches repeatedly and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation.  All of this is clearly contrary to the theories of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

     Moreover, the Catechism also teaches that Christians are distinguished from non-Christians by the Sacrament of Baptism.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Second Effect: Sacramental Character, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both effects are exemplified.  By it we are qualified to receive the other Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess the faith.”

     Those who assert that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for salvation (e.g., all those who believe in “baptism of desire”) contradict the very teaching of the Catechism of Trent.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”

Quote from: Seraphim

Thanks anyway.

I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.

 

Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?

Let me turn it around:

Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Seraphim

Thanks anyway.

I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.

 

Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?

Let me turn it around:

Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?

I've never yet had one BODer answer my question directly the first time I asked, it's always like pulling teeth from them. The record still stands.  I asked first. Just answer my simple question.

Baptism alone justifies. desire merely predisposes us to justice, but we are not thereby justified.

Precisely the error of Fr Feeney!

Perfect contrition justifies, and has nothing to do with water baptism.

Your slogan should not be EENS, but NSWWB (no salvation without water baptism).

You also seem to be out of step with your errant brethren Feenyites, who all admit that one can be justified without water baptism (they just deny, quite heretically against the canon of the council of Trent, that those justified without water baptism are saved).

You need to read up if you want to be a more effective heretic,