I know you don't like "convoluted" posts Ladislaus, you prefer short and sweet posts, point by point. That's fine. Respond in that manner if you like. But I put everything I need to say into one post when I can, for the sake of organization and diligence in expressing myself as well and as clearly as possible. This thread is organized and and coherent, so you will have no trouble dealing with the responses to your objections, as well as responding to my own questions,
unless you WANT to.
Dogma and heresy are not topics where we limit the communication, and thereby the truth, and certainly not in a public forum.
Already I have given you certain answers to your objections, which you have as yet not acknowledged. Know that it is a matter of justice, if you are going to engage in a debate with someone,
especially in such weighty matters, to either concede a point when it's made and you cannot honestly deny it, or to soundly refute it if you can.
I cannot show you such a decree because it doesn't exist and it doesn't need to. All we need is the Church teaching that unless one receives Holy Baptism, administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot, as the Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven.
I had said this in response to:
You show me a teaching of the Church that states: "Explicit Baptism of Desire must be rejected by Catholics."
And the statement I gave you does not say that. It says nothing about doctrines that must be rejected, rather it professes a doctrine that must be HELD as dogma. It does explicitly state, however, that one must receive the sacrament of baptism to be able to enter Heaven.
It's in the post on page 28 of the "
Great Sermon on no salvation outside the Church" thread. It's the very first one in response to your appearance. I find it odd that you would have missed it.
Here it is again (this time in full):
Exultate Deo[/i] of Nov. 22, AD 1442, ex cathedra,]Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.
You may not remember, my question about this Catholic dogamtic definition was as follows:
What are you going to argue? "The first sentence is talking about the sacrament of Baptism, yes. The third one, yes. But the one in the middle... well... um..."
Yes, such a decree does need to exist in order for the denial thereof to be deemed explicit heresy.
So denying the above definition does not constitute "explicit heresy", according to your sources. Is this correct?
This distinction of "explicit heresy" is really a rather new term to me. Perhaps you would care to define it using approved Catholic sources?
All I know is it is not found at all in the writings of the
Church Fathers or the
Magisterium.
Of course, unless I'm mistaken, you've cobbled together your one big long sentence from multiple different dogmatic decrees. What you wrote states that "unless one receives baptism administered in water he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven".
I did not "cobble", as you now know.
Yet you denied that such a statement exists. You joined different decrees together to make your statement.
Now you should see that we have had a misunderstanding. You asked for a statement that EXPLICITLY said SUCH AND SUCH A DOCTRINE MUST BE REJECTED.
I was right - there is no statement from the Magisterium that specifically designates BoD by name, and says "must be rejected by Catholics".
The statement I gave you explicitly says one may not be saved without have been baptized in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. That's different.
There are OTHER statement which assert explicitly that one may not reject a dogmatic definition, such as in
Satis Cognitum, which I already presented in the "
Great Sermon on no salvation outside the Church" thread, and which you failed to acknowledge, even after I had pointed it out.
Various theologians argue that the effects of baptism can be received by desire and perfect charity just as the effects of confession can be received by perfect contrition. If I recall, St. Alphonsus draws this analogy.
Yes, and all of this has been covered
ad nauseam in the "
Great Sermon on no salvation outside the Church" thread already. What it boils down to is this: The Solemn Magisterium is the final say on any matter of doctrine and may never be lawfully opposed or dissented.
As you know, I AGREE with you that actual sacramental baptism is required for salvation, but it's going way too far to call the contrary opinion explicit heresy.
Explicit heresy again. Sources? Obviously I have no problem in understanding implicit vs. explicit, but perhaps you could clarify some lingering questions I have on the matter (with Catholic sources - if they exist).
Do you call BoD implicit heresy? Or no heresy at all?
Does a proposition have to require a deduction in reasoning to realize it is contrary to dogma, or several steps before it can be considered implicit heresy?
Does implicit heresy sever a man from the Church any less than explicit heresy?
Do you differentiate a Catholic who falls into material from a Catholic who falls into implicit heresy? Or do you consider these concepts to be one and the same?
I believe that this opinion will one day be condemned as heretical, but until then I have little more to prove it than my own arguments and fallible human reason.
Do you believe that implicit heresy is any statement contrary to a dogmatic definition, but which has not yet been formally condemned?
Church teaches that you must be baptized in order to be saved, but some argue that you can be baptized voto.
Are they NOT heretics for denying what the Church teaches, if once they have seen that She teaches it in a dogmatic definition, they deny it all the same?