The Douay Catechism (17th century): "Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."

Was the spammer finally thrown out of CI or did he finally crackup? I do not see his sub-forum monopolizing spamming anymore.

He doesn't appear to be banned (looking at the Members List).  He probably got tired of it here and moved his act somewhere else.  He mentioned that he was at some other forum.  He might get bored over there and then come back.

Lover of Truth is in the practice of trying to control a discussion by putting his fingers in his ears and singing la la la at the top of his keyboard.  As if we haven't already seen and considered every quote and explained to him that nothing, no saint, no theologian, no Catholic writer can trump the teachings of Jesus Christ or the Church, each who made it quite clear for those who have ears, that not only is there no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation without baptism and no baptism without water.  LoT's spamming action is the work of one who desperately wants to be right at the expense of what's true and obvious.  After all, if the Church didn't mean what She said, and Christ didn't mean what He said, and Trent didn't mean what it said in its infallible canons, then those who accepted that these authorities actually did mean it, won't be in trouble.  On the other hand, if the Church did mean what She said and Christ meant what He said and Trent meant what it said, then those denying it, modifying it, or otherwise softening what is clearly taught, will be held accountable.    

:-X

DZ,
As a writer, could you make this kinda thing up?
If you can, you'd better get to work, you'll be a millionaire before you know it...