Bowler wrote:

You should read the entire funeral oration  for yourself. Here is what the BODers always quote from the eulogy:

"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).

Out of the hundreds of fathers of the Church, the only other one (besides two quotes from St. Augustine that the baptism of desire advocates even try to quote is St. Ambrose. They think that in his funeral speech for his friend the Emperor Valentinian he taught that the emperor (who was only a catechumen) was saved by his desire for baptism. But St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It is thus gratuitous for them to assert that it clearly teaches the idea of “baptism of desire.”

Here's the part that the BODers always leave out when they quote the eulogy:

"Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly
celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also."

Observe that St. Ambrose clearly says that “martyrs are not crowned (that is, not saved) if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea of baptism of blood and is perfectly consistent with his other statements on the issue, which I  quote below. St. Ambrose then emphasizes the same point, by stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they are not baptized. He then proceeds to say that if they are washed in their own blood, his (Valentinian’s) piety and desire have washed him also, which seems to directly contradict what he just said and seems to teach baptism of desire and blood, although it is not clear, since he did not say that Valentinian was saved without baptism. But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens. And this is the oldest “text” quoted in favor of the idea of baptism of desire!

It is, first of all, contradictory; secondly, it is ambiguous; and thirdly, if interpreted to mean that a catechumen is saved without water baptism, is opposed to every other statement St. Ambrose formally made on the issue.

This is yet another example of deception or crass ignorance from this poster.   He is attempting to demonstrate on his own authority and reasoning that St.  Ambrose was not teaching Baptism of Desire in his funeral oration for his beloved friend, the Emperor Valentinian.  

1.  All authorities, Popes, Doctors and theologians all understand what St. Ambrose was teaching in his funeral oration, and that was Baptism of Desire.  

I will cite from only one authority, for now, as a Catholic should always wish to learn first from the Pope.  Although not an official act of his magisterium, this teaching from Pope Innocent III clearly shows that he understood the meaning of St. Ambrose's oration to Valentinian, and clearly professed his belief in Baptism of Desire.

Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century):

We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned.

(Denzinger 388)

(Take note that it was the same Pope Innocent III, cited above, that defined "Outside the Church, No Salvation.)

2.  The funeral oration was not ambiguous, as Bowler asserts.   St. Ambrose very clearly stated:

(51) But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request?* But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified his desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7).

(52) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?

Every authority that has ever commented on this section of the oration has clearly understood its obvious meaning:  St. Ambrose was asserting that Valentinian may be saved through Baptism of Desire.  

3.  Bowler erroneously asserts that "St. Ambrose clearly says that “martyrs are not crowned (that is, not saved) if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea of baptism of blood [/b]".   Bowler continues:  "St. Ambrose then emphasizes the same point, by stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they are not baptized. "

In these statements, Bowler again demonstrates that he is either dishonest or lacks reading comprehension.  I hope for his sake it is the latter, but if it is the latter, he has no business teaching Catholics on matters of theology, especially complex matters!

Does Bowler say to himself:  "Why does nobody see what I see, not Popes, not Doctors, not theologians, I am the expert who knows better than even Pope Innocent III himself!"

Let us  now examine paragraph 53 from the funeral oration that Bowler is using as his proof text:  

(
5

3) Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.

Bowler displays his ignorance of older funeral rites.  St. Ambrose was not talking about the crown of glory in Heaven, he was talking about a crown worn on the heads of martyrs at the funerals.  This is why he specifically he specifically connects the fact that the mysteries not being celebrated with the fact that despite unbaptized martyrs not being crowned at their funerals, they are still saved through Baptism of Blood.

4.  Bowler arrogantly asserts:  

But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens.

Bowler says this because he failed to grasp the obvious meaning of the text.  St. Ambrose did not contradict himself, and was not being nonsensical, he was speaking with precision.  Anyone with any love for theology would never think that a great Father and Doctor such as St. Ambrose could even have possibly been nonsensical in his teaching.  

A rule of thumb for Bowler and anyone rules:  realize that you (and I) are lowly and stupid men, the Doctors of the Church and great theologians were great men, graced by God to understand highly complex matters of theology.  Learn at their feet, believe them, and stop thinking you know more than them.  

This is all part of the endless ignorance (or possibly trickery) of those that dare to profess heresy by denying Baptism of Desire.  

.

 :confused1:  Another silly thread on the same old, tired nonsense?    



For someone concerned with unnecessary baggage, you'd think these would be a good example of that.



.

.

Let's see:  13 minutes.  SJB is faster than you.  HAHAHAHA


,

0

Below is Amdro's (I'm forced to call him that so nobody confuses him with St. Ambrose) thread opening corrected by me by inserted my entire posting. Notice that he left out the two most important points that I posted, and left only the parts that are my comments, and then he proceeds to say that it is my opinion against Innocent III. That is called a strawman

The most important parts of my posting (that of course he omitted) are that Migne says that Valentinian was baptized, and also St. Ambrose's clear quotes against baptism of desire of the catechumen. You can read it for yourselves below.

Even more important is the point that I just made above that Heroin BODers like SJB, LOT and  Amdro  believe that Valentinian would have been saved even if he practiced ANY false "religion",  and had no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. So what on earth are they knit-picking with this eulogy?

Also, see my thread: "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" . It is interesting that ALL those 100's of those clear quotes, the Heroin BODer says should not be understood as they are written. However, this ambiguous Valentinian eulogy must be understood to teach BOD of the catechumen (which they don't believe is necessary for salvation!).


This posting by Amdro clearly shows that Heron BODers beliefs start with disbelief in EENS, "it just can't be", then from there they seek their teachers according to their own desires, disregarding or rationalizing all the inconsistencies

Bowler wrote:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: andysloan

To Bowler
 the case of Emperor Valentian II, the funeral oration of St Ambrose is an extant docuмent.

You should read the entire funeral oration  for yourself. Here is what the BODers always quote from the eulogy:

"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).

Out of the hundreds of fathers of the Church, the only other one (besides two quotes from St. Augustine that the baptism of desire advocates even try to quote is St. Ambrose. They think that in his funeral speech for his friend the Emperor Valentinian he taught that the emperor (who was only a catechumen) was saved by his desire for baptism. But St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It is thus gratuitous for them to assert that it clearly teaches the idea of “baptism of desire.”

Here's the part that the BODers always leave out when they quote the eulogy:

"Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly
celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also."

Observe that St. Ambrose clearly says that “martyrs are not crowned (that is, not saved) if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea of baptism of blood and is perfectly consistent with his other statements on the issue, which I  quote below. St. Ambrose then emphasizes the same point, by stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they are not baptized. He then proceeds to say that if they are washed in their own blood, his (Valentinian’s) piety and desire have washed him also, which seems to directly contradict what he just said and seems to teach baptism of desire and blood, although it is not clear, since he did not say that Valentinian was saved without baptism. But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens. And this is the oldest “text” quoted in favor of the idea of baptism of desire!

It is, first of all, contradictory; secondly, it is ambiguous; and thirdly, if interpreted to mean that a catechumen is saved without water baptism, is opposed to every other statement St. Ambrose formally made on the issue.

We know by his other writings, that  St. Ambrose in fact taught directly and clearly against even the idea of  baptism of desire for a catechumen. What then, did he mean by his speech over Valentinian ? Fr. Migne supplies the answer himself (Patrologia Latina, XVI 412, n. 19). St. Ambrose in fact knew, that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, but was not at liberty to reveal the circuмstances of the event, which presumably were bound up with the Emperor's mysterious death. Seen in this light, the three sentences represent no departure from Ambrose's teaching elsewhere; moreover, they are in full keeping with the entire tenor of his speech: vague but reassuring. What was the "grace he desired?" Baptism of course! St. Ambrose is assuring his listeners that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, and so they need not fear for him on that count.

Again, here is what St. Ambrose wrote with much thought and precision, which eliminates the very concept of baptism of desire and affirms the universal Tradition of all the fathers that no one (including catechumens) is saved without water baptism.

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390‐391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism
are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any
one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is
water without the cross of Christ? A common element without
any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any
mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be
born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in
the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but,
unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor
be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jєω or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 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.”

This is yet another example of deception or crass ignorance from this poster.   He is attempting to demonstrate on his own authority and reasoning that St.  Ambrose was not teaching Baptism of Desire in his funeral oration for his beloved friend, the Emperor Valentinian.  

1.  All authorities, Popes, Doctors and theologians all understand what St. Ambrose was teaching in his funeral oration, and that was Baptism of Desire.  

I will cite from only one authority, for now, as a Catholic should always wish to learn first from the Pope.  Although not an official act of his magisterium, this teaching from Pope Innocent III clearly shows that he understood the meaning of St. Ambrose's oration to Valentinian, and clearly professed his belief in Baptism of Desire.

Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century):

Quote

We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned.

(Denzinger 388)

(Take note that it was the same Pope Innocent III, cited above, that defined "Outside the Church, No Salvation.)

2.  The funeral oration was not ambiguous, as Bowler asserts.   St. Ambrose very clearly stated:

Quote

(51) But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request?* But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified his desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7).

(52) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?

Every authority that has ever commented on this section of the oration has clearly understood its obvious meaning:  St. Ambrose was asserting that Valentinian may be saved through Baptism of Desire.  

3.  Bowler erroneously asserts that "St. Ambrose clearly says that “martyrs are not crowned (that is, not saved) if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea of baptism of blood [/b]".   Bowler continues:  "St. Ambrose then emphasizes the same point, by stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they are not baptized. "

In these statements, Bowler again demonstrates that he is either dishonest or lacks reading comprehension.  I hope for his sake it is the latter, but if it is the latter, he has no business teaching Catholics on matters of theology, especially complex matters!

Does Bowler say to himself:  "Why does nobody see what I see, not Popes, not Doctors, not theologians, I am the expert who knows better than even Pope Innocent III himself!"

Let us  now examine paragraph 53 from the funeral oration that Bowler is using as his proof text:  

(
5

Quote

3) Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.

Bowler displays his ignorance of older funeral rites.  St. Ambrose was not talking about the crown of glory in Heaven, he was talking about a crown worn on the heads of martyrs at the funerals.  This is why he specifically he specifically connects the fact that the mysteries not being celebrated with the fact that despite unbaptized martyrs not being crowned at their funerals, they are still saved through Baptism of Blood.

4.  Bowler arrogantly asserts:  

Quote

But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens.

Bowler says this because he failed to grasp the obvious meaning of the text.  St. Ambrose did not contradict himself, and was not being nonsensical, he was speaking with precision.  Anyone with any love for theology would never think that a great Father and Doctor such as St. Ambrose could even have possibly been nonsensical in his teaching.  

A rule of thumb for Bowler and anyone rules:  realize that you (and I) are lowly and stupid men, the Doctors of the Church and great theologians were great men, graced by God to understand highly complex matters of theology.  Learn at their feet, believe them, and stop thinking you know more than them.  

This is all part of the endless ignorance (or possibly trickery) of those that dare to profess heresy by denying Baptism of Desire.  

Stubborn wrote:

Quote

In summary, on the one hand, St. Ambrose's words bespeak his
hope that Valentinian was provided with the requisites of salvation.
On the other hand, this quotation does not tell us that Valentinian died
without Baptism. We may just as easily speculate that before he died,
one of his ministers or servants baptized him, something which St.
Ambrose had as yet not gotten news of. Again, our not knowing
something is not a proof of anything. [....] - Who Shall Ascend?

It is clear and manifest that Valentinian did not receive the sacrament of Baptism.  Have you actually read the funeral oration?  If you have and you believe this, then your agenda of promoting your heresy is clouding your judgment.

It is clear and manifest that as far as St. Ambrose and all the others were concerned that Valentinian did not receive the sacrament of Baptism - which is the reason explicitly given that all of the faithful that have gathered for the memorial service of the Emperor were grieved.

This oration is hardly the occasion for a doctrinal treatise on baptism - all it really is, is St. Ambrose imploring God to accept Valentinian's desire to be baptized and then confirming that God accepted said desire.

Again, our not knowing something is not a proof of anything no matter how hard you want to believe to the contrary.

The people were grieved as Valentinian did not receive the sacrament of Baptism.  But, that only shows what is true in every age, that most laypeople do not understand complex matters of Faith.  St. Ambrose reassured the people by teaching them that Valentinian could be saved through Baptism of Desire.

It is obvious that times have not changed too much, today many laypeople and even a few priests continue to be simple, ignorant and unable to make complex distinctions.  The only difference being that Catholics of the old days listened to authority, while moderns make themselves the authority.  

The oration was not a doctrinal treatise, but it was a public profession by a Father and Doctor of the Church of a revealed truth of our Faith.  Baptism of Desire is part of the deposit of Faith, to deny it is heresy.

It was a funeral oration - a beautiful oration at that - but that is all it was. That's it. End of story. They were all sad because far as they knew, he had not been baptized. It cannot be put more obvious than that, that no one at that time ever heard of a BOD, but they all knew John 3:5.

Now how on earth can a bod be de fide, be a part of the deposit of faith when +300 years after our Lord ascended into heaven, the only thing they knew was that the sacrament was necessary unto salvation?  

There is nothing complex about the necessity of the sacraments, nothing. A child can baptize it is so simple - it becomes complex only when you try to add  exceptions to the teaching of the Church, *and then* claim no exception was added - that's when it becomes complicated alright.

It does not matter if it was a funeral oration or not.  St. Ambrose publicly witnessed to the truth about Baptism of Desire.  The fact that it was at a funeral does not change the fact that he both believed in Baptism of Desire and taught it to the people as a truth.

This is why the people all grieved. This is what the teaching of the Church as always been, which is why the people who thought the emperor died without the sacrament, grieved. St. Ambrose taught it:

One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of
water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be
baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all
without water: 'For unless a man be born again of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.' Now, even the
catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with
which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he
cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual
grace." (De Mysterlls,-THE DIVINE OFFICE).

The Sacraments are necessary for salvation. But BoD and BoB are substitutes for most of the effects of the sacrament.  The matter is complex because simple matters require only one step in reasoning, this involves extra steps.  

The Teachings of the Church are simple and complex at the same time, which is why a child can profess the same Faith as a Doctor of the Church.  Where did you learn your ideas about BoD by the way, what catechism or approved theology work did you use?

You are making your own contradictory exception when you say that the sacraments are necessary for salvation - which is what Trent infallibly declared - - - then you contradict that teaching with an exception by saying: "But BoD and BoB are substitutes for most of the effects of the sacrament"

How can Trent teach infallibly that the sacraments are a necessity, then contradict itself and teach they are not?  The answer of course is, that Trent never taught about sacramental substitutes.  
   
These exceptions originated from various different fathers and theologians - who all must submit to the judgement of the Church. The Church does not teach of these exceptions, and these exceptions contradict what the Church does teach.

As in the sacrament of Penance, Trent teaches that it might be possible that if one achieves perfect contrition along with the desire to confess their sins, they can be justified *before* they actually receive the sacrament - not that they can be justified *without* the sacrament.

The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God "before this sacrament be actually received", the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.

This identical theology is repeated in regards to the sacrament of Baptism:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;

and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Without the "actual reception" of the sacrament, Trent clearly declares that there is no justification, so how is there salvation? Where did that idea originate? BODers will insist Trent taught it - but there it is right there and Trent clearly taught no such a thing.

It is right there, there can be no disputing the clear infallible teaching.

This is why no one knows what happens to the theoretical person who may or may not achieve perfect contrition while desiring to actually receive the sacrament - and may or may not achieve justification on that account, but dies prior to the reception of the sacrament.

All we know for sure is that it is de fide that it is possible to achieve justification *before actually receiving the sacrament* - not without it and not by the desire thereof alone - which is through faith alone - which is clearly condemned in the above canon.  

Fathers have taught that salvation is rewarded without the sacrament, but they are speculating. And per Trent, this speculation is error. At the very least, this speculation needs to be defined or condemned infallibly - until then, we cannot contradict or add exceptions to that which the Church through Trent has infallibly defined - which states the sacraments are necessary unto salvation and that without the sacraments, there is no justification.