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?

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?

I consider the implicit BoD of infidels/pagans in invincible ignorance to be implicit heresy because it renders EENS a meaningless formula.  It entails semi-Pelagianism.

I consider the explicit BoD of catechumens to be a theological error.  And I am open to the fact that I could be wrong.  So when God restores a Traditional Pope to the Church, were he to dogmatically teach explicit BoD, I would accept it rather than become a sedevacantist.  Which of course opens up the sedevacantism can of worms, from which I'll abstain in this particular thread.

In addition to explicit vs. implicit BoD, there's the related but separate question of formal vs. material ignorance in the baptized (i.e. the case of Protestants, Orthodox, etc.).

Ladislaus said:

"So when God restores a Traditional Pope to the Church..."

That's a tautology.  Popes guard tradition, that is their job, so even if they were once liberal before election a la Pius IX, all real Popes are traditional when they teach the universal Church, or else they are no Popes at all.

The modes of reception for the grace of the sacraments were already defined.  "Desire to be baptized" was not a mode of reception for baptism, but on the contrary an element, without which it is impossible to be justified.  All the definitions together (if you do not want to deny any one of them) leave no other choice but to give the assent of Faith to Christ's words in St. John 3:5 in their plain and obvious sense.

I'll get cracking on that, CM.  I'm sure somewhere in the history of the Church, in a Council decree or Bull, it is stated that we must confess to be forgiven in a way that sounds like perfect contrition is excluded.  Maybe not though.

Pax said:

Quote

I agree. There is no way Trent was addressing the many Protestant heresies springing up all around like tares sown among the wheat.

Sarcasm acknowledged.  You're right, that is what is leading to the loss of many souls mentioned in the Introduction.  I guess I've developed a measure of tunnel vision from all these intra-Catholic arguments.

But the Decree on Justification doesn't seem aimed at Protestants only.  What Protestant do you know of that denies baptism?  That is the sacrament that they visibly retained.  Of course there is much in Trent that is against faith without works sufficing for justification.

Even if it was written against Protestantism, it still touches upon and defines what is necessary for Catholics.

They deny the efficacy of sacramental baptism in various ways

Here you go CM -- from the same Decree on Justification --

Quote

"Canon 29.
If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again, or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, let him be anathema."

If you wanted, you could take this out of context and make it sound like there is no perfect contrition.

Yes, you would indeed have to take it out of context because perfect contrition was defined as a mode of reception for the grace of the sacrament.

Oral confession to a priest, introduced by Innocent, is not as necessary to people as he claimed. For if anyone offends his brother in thought, word or deed, then it suffices to repent in thought, word or deed.

This is the closest thing that I have found to the hypothetical statement you proposed, but it is still not sufficient, since reconciliation that comes with perfect contrition is not ascribed to the contrition independently of the desire of the sacrament as a valid mode of reception for the justifying grace thereof, even though the sacrament itself is not effected (as we learn from Florence).

"Repent in thought, word and deed" is not equivalent to perfect contrition.

All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected...

The fourth sacrament is penance. Its matter is the acts of the penitent, which are threefold. The first is contrition of heart, which includes sorrow for sin committed, with the resolve not to sin again. The second is oral confession, which implies integral confession to the priest of all sins that are remembered. The third is satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of the priest which is ordinarily done by prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament are the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you. The minister of this sacrament is a priest with authority to absolve, which is either ordinary or by commission of a superior.

So while it is impossible for the sacrament of Penance to be effected without confession to a priest (and you will never find a decree that says this priest has to be on earth, which is why I confess to le Curé D'Ars AND pray for perfect contrition - and I also disclosed the details of my general confession to a "layman" who, sadly, has become a schismatic), it was never defined that a baptized person was unable to be justified without the sacrament of Penance.

And then Trent gave us the clear teaching, which does not posit a reformation against any of the previous definitions, that the grace of the sacrament is received even when the sacrament itself is not effected:

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.

So this has nothing to do with "faith alone, without the sacrament of Penance".

Finally, the only other argument in favour of BoD that I can think of, which had briefly given me pause is this:

And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

It was implied (by Thomas Sparks) that this decree was teaching that both Baptism and Penance are to be held as necessary by a necessity of precept.

But this terminological distinction between necessity of means and necessity of precept is not at all what the Council was talking about; they taught that Penance and Baptism both receive their necessity from the same source, ie; they are not merely necessary by human institution or discipline, but by Divine right.

If such, in all the regenerate, were their gratitude towards God, as that they constantly preserved the justice received in baptism by His bounty and grace; there would not have been need for another sacrament, besides that of baptism itself, to be instituted for the remission of sins But because God, rich in mercy, knows our frame, He hath bestowed a remedy of life even on those who may, after baptism, have delivered themselves up to the servitude of sin and the power of the devil, --the sacrament to wit of Penance...

And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated...

But the acts of the penitent himself, to wit, contrition, confession and satisfaction, are as it were the matter of this sacrament. Which acts, inasmuch as they are, by God's institution, required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament, and for the full and perfect remission of sins...

From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism...

Wherefore, whereas the secret sacramental confession, which was in use from the beginning in holy Church, and is still also in use, has always been commended by the most holy and the most ancient Fathers with a great and unanimous consent, the vain calumny of those is manifestly refuted, who are not ashamed to teach, that confession is alien from the divine command, and is a human invention, and that it took its rise from the Fathers assembled in the Council of Lateran: for the Church did not, through the Council of Lateran, ordain that the faithful of Christ should confess,--a thing which it knew to be necessary, and to be instituted of divine right...

The phrase from Trent Session 14 Chapter 4 is true in that both sacraments are necessary of divine right and not by human invention.

But the two sacraments nevertheless have different modes of reception.  Among the baptized the grace of justification may be received so long as one has perfect contrition and a desire for the sacrament, since the sacrament of Penance is necessary by precept, whereas Baptism, though also necessary by Divine right, as Penance, differs from it by being necessary as a means of salvation, absolutely necessary.

Exultate Deo[/i], which]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.

This entire quote is ONE COHESIVE DEFINITION, treating of the effects of sacramental Baptism (entrance to the Church), it's absolute necessity (unless a man be born again... he cannot enter) and the mode of reception thereof (the matter and form).

All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children

There is no other "baptism" but the one administered in water.  Baptism of desire is not administered in water.

And those who say "a perfect means of salvation means that there are other means" are correct.  There are other means, described by Trent:

For, by baptism putting on Christ, we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins: unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism.

Not "a perfect means of salvation" like Baptism, but a laborious means of salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism.

All this it is even more evident when reading the entirety of Chapter 4, which contained the one liner taken out of context by Thomas Sparks:

For the rest, this sacrament is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects: for besides that it is very widely different indeed in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it is beyond doubt certain that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, seeing that the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. For, what have I, saith the apostle, to do to judge them that are without? It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body; for such, if they should afterwards have defiled themselves by any crime, He would no longer have them cleansed by a repetition of baptism--that being nowise lawful in the Catholic Church-but be placed as criminals before this tribunal; that, by the sentence of the priests, they might be freed, not once, but as often as, being penitent, they should, from their sins committed, flee thereunto. Furthermore, one is the fruit of baptism, and another that of penance. For, by baptism putting on Christ, we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins: unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The gate of baptism is the same as the gate described in Exultate Deo - sacramental Baptism.

So there you go.  Aside from objections that you have brought up or others on Cathinfo, I have presented to you every remaining objection that I have ever seen used to support BoD, but they just don't fly.

We may never posit a reformation against the words of any dogmatic definition.

Ladislaus said:

Quote

"So when God restores a Traditional Pope to the Church..."

That's a tautology.  Popes guard tradition, that is their job, ...

You're right.  Poorly expressed on my part.  I think you know what I mean though.