Now I know you don't even read posts before you reply. Go back and read the post, I answered the questions you asked.

I am sorry, I stand corrected.
You did say that "I attended an SSPX chapel" - to which I ask, WHY?

Whoever waters down or denies the dogma makes Catholicity hardly more than a nicety, as if membership in the Church were like the first-class compartment on a commercial airliner, in which the majority of others will arrive at the same destination, really none the worse for their second-class transport.



You did not answer the question because you did not quote from the catechism which came directly from Trent:

You said: I also answered that question you keep repeating about Trent's catechism earlier, go back and see, with the words, "Exactly, for adults, the danger present for infants if they die is not there, because it is certain that desire will avail for adults in that case, which therefore no man may ever lawfully call into question, without being offensive to the Church" to which you didn't answer. If that teaching of the Catechism of Trent is false, the martyrs and catechumens who have gone to their death believing it, have been lost for all eternity because of the Church, which is heretical to assert, and which destroys the Church.


FYI, you did not post the catechism from Trent because here is the section, CORRECTLY copied - so try again and Please post it's teachings on a BOD or how a BOD is salvic or how the unforeseen accident + BOD = salvation (Note: if you read what is written, you will be faced with the fact that they teach something completely contrary to a BOD)



On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

Quote from: SJB

Quote

All it takes in one Pope to make a solemn pronouncement, after that we have no choice, we are bound to believe what has been pronounced - without exception. There is no 3 baptisms no matter how many catechisms say there is.

Of course it has never occurred to you that if nobody else has noticed this ... then maybe you really haven't noticed it either.

All the souls in heaven noticed it - that much is guaranteed.
All the Catholics before Cushing noticed it - since it was, after all, the only teaching of the Church that is easily traced from the time of the Apostles  that 100%  all saints and theologians and fathers and doctors of the Church taught that there was only one baptism - read Eph 4:5 - this makes the teaching of one baptism universally common and constant - and defined infallibly.

No, you have shown NO EVIDENCE that anybody ever noticed or commented on this "grave error." You can't seem to grasp the enormity of your lonely opinion.


 

Quote from: SJB

Quote

You preach a strange "rule of faith" when any one of any faith can slide into heaven via the road of good intentions.

Without true supernatural faith nobody is saved. Your comment about "sliding into heaven" is strange and reminds me of the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

The workers in the vineyard labored, all preformed the same labor under the same owner - your attempt at using the parable for justification of rewarding infidels, who explicitly reject to labor at all, the same reward as Catholics is futile.

They didn't perform the same labor. Some labored all day; some just a small fraction of a day.

Stubborn, in the impossible chance that you do not know, I will remind you that the SSPX teaches and has always taught baptism of desire and publicly reproved Feeneyism as an error and a misunderstanding, at best. So your question to me on that point is meaningless. You should ask yourself why +ABL and almost all traditional priests today reject your opinion as false. Since you won't submit to Magisterial authority from the past, you might at least submit to moral authorities such as traditional priests and Bishops in the present, perhaps? But you probably won't do that either.

I already answered your questions, but you don't read properly when you answer, you see only what you want to see and ignore the rest.

I. Trent's Catechism - yes, I quoted it in the first response, I'm not going to quote it every time, we both know what it says - reasons in this way when it explains why there is no danger in adult catechumens being baptized after some delay.

1. For infants, the danger of them dying and being lost is present
2. For adults, this same danger is not present at all
3. This is because desire will avail them to grace in that situation

So you are wrong on that as well, the context clearly shows it is speaking of adults whom death overtakes unforeseen to them. In this line of reasoning too, Trent follows almost verbatim here the reasoning and the answer of the Angelic Doctor on this point.

II. Just like God is Triune, baptism too is in a sense triune. This is how the Apostle writes, which also refers to the threefold means of baptism.

"And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."

The Angelic Doctor also teaches the same thing, the baptism of blood, water and spirit as a threefold means of one baptism.

Even if you completely reject all this, as you undoubtedly will, at least you should have the very minimal intellectual honesty to concede that this doctrine predates Cushing by millenia. Will you? Probably not.

Please answer what I ask you first before you attempt to answer what I ask Isaac, in case you haven't noticed, the both of you do not exactly agree entirely, so I ask different questions to you both.

As for Isaac, I asked you a question you didn't answer on penance.

III. Do you admit in that case the res sacramenti, the sacramental effect can be obtained by desire perfected by contrition, before the reception of the actual sacrament?

That it can is the plain teaching of Trent, because a desire for the sacrament is included in such an act of perfect contrition.

"it happens sometimes that this contrition is perfect through charity and reconciles man to God before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself without a desire of the sacrament, which desire is included in it"

A near moral certitude that our sins have been forgiven, which Stubborn mentioned earlier, is one outcome of receiving the actual sacrament, but that is not, strictly speaking, the exact reason we must confess our sins even if we are truly perfectly contrite, as seen in the excerpt above.

We'll go from there, because it's exactly analogous with catechumens and baptism, and Trent utilises the same word and principle of desire in reference to the sacramental effect of baptism.

IV. Do you agree that perfect contrition will not avail for one who by contempt or neglect of the sacrament, intends to put off the confession of his sins? Well, the like thing applies to baptism and it is catechumens who do that whom the Fathers are reproving, just like a priest would rebuke penitents who, however much he professes to be contrite, when the sacrament became available, would delay or neglect to receive it.

Beside this, since individual Fathers can be mistaken, the point is moot - the Pope and the Church quite clearly settled the issue, and not in your favor. Do you believe Pope Innocent III, the same pope who declared there was no salvation outside the Church, was mistaken in the authoritative response he gave regarding baptism of desire, that I cited earlier?

One thing - I meant to quote 1 Jn 5:7-8 but in fact only quoted the latter verse.

You just prove again and again that you don't read posts. See page 20, post #4 by me beginning "No, there is no way around" and ending "being offensive to the Church" where the Catechism from Trent is quoted and I gave my first answer.

You jump to 3 without reading 1 and 2. Do you know what a syllogism is? Each premise in that line of reasoning depends on and follows from the one antecedent to it.

You asked, "Where is it said the accident caused any adult's "death" - the comparison with infants and the danger present there establishes it beyond a doubt, since the Catechism affirms the same danger - death - present for infants is not present for adults.

Also, as is typical, you didn't answer or even attempt to answer Pope St. Pius V's pronouncements which touch the subject, despite grave and obstinate Feeneyite denial, since the Pope taught that perfect charity in catechumens does secure the remission of sins, and condemned the opposite error.

I asked you very specifically to read what was written and to show where the catechism taught that BOD is salvic.............

1) What does the word "avail" mean?
2) Since when is "grace" and "salvation" the same thing?
3) Where is it said the accident caused any adult's "death"?

Now I know you do not read what has been written for our instruction - rather, you take what has been taught for our instruction and change it to suit your own theory.

Quote

1) What does the word "avail" mean?

You really are grasping at straws, aren't you?

a•vail (əˈveɪl)

v.t.
1. to be of use, advantage, or value to; profit: All our efforts availed us little.
v.i.
2. to be of use; have force or efficacy; serve; help: Nothing you do will avail.
3. to be of value or profit.
n.
4. effective use in the achievement of a goal or objective; advantage; use: His help was of no avail.
5. avails, Archaic. profits or proceeds.

Ok, so now you should understand that "their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness............" does not say, imply or otherwise mean that their desire *gives* them grace *and* righteousness - and it certainly does not say that desire rewards them salvation.

If you cannot agree, then read what is written until you understand what it is they are teaching. This is a catechism, written to be understood literally so as to learn from it - it is not written so whoever chooses too can add new meanings to that which is written.

 

Quote

2) Since when is "grace" and "salvation" the same thing?

Since it is a dogmatic truth that all who die in the state of grace are saved.

The catechism does not say that the desire to be baptized *gives* grace - that is YOU and ONLY you who are saying that. Can't you see that??

The catechism states "their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness"

"Avail them to grace and righteousness" = put them in the proper disposition to receive the Sacrament.
This is the same disposition all adults need to have before they are baptized - it in no way shape or form says: "their desire will give them grace and this grace is sufficient for their salvation" - only YOU are saying it says that - but that is NOT what it says - read it until you read what is written and understand what  they wrote without adding your own provizos.

Quote

3) Where is it said the accident caused any adult's "death"?

When it is clearly said that "The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants which we have already mentioned". What is the danger "which we have already mentioned" - death.

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned;....

With infants the Church is concerned because there is always the danger of premature death - but the catechism is telling you that this danger of death is not ordinarily any concern for adults, which is why they are not baptized at once - that's why it states that the danger is not the same danger - in fact, the following paragraph states that the delay for adults is advantageous.

It continues on.....Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.



The catechism THEN goes on about the "unforeseen emergency" - NOTE that it STILL does not state the desire will reward salvation, but it does explicitly state the sacrament must still be administered:

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

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 baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.[/i]

This is why I keep telling you that you need to read what is written, if you will do this, you will not be guilty of changing what the catechism is teaching.

Heh. You've descended into semantics and hermeneutics now have you?

Quote

"does not say, imply or otherwise mean that their desire *gives* them grace *and* righteousness"

If the Catechism had said, "gives" them grace, you would have wrested that even more awkwardly than you are doing now.

Are you a Protestant? Do you believe in "imputed righteousness"? Surely not.

Avail them to grace and righteousness is the correct way to say it - anyone who knows anything about the Catholic doctrine on justification knows that it is teaching that they attain to the infused justice or righteousness that comes with sanctifying grace.

Yes, it is the correct way to say it. That is why they said  "will avail" and not "gives".

Again, read what is written, without adding your own provisos.

Quote

but the catechism is telling you that this danger of death is not ordinarily any concern for adults, which is why they are not baptized at once - that's why it states that the danger is not the same danger

No, firstly if there were no extraordinary means of baptism and the Church delayed the baptism of adult catechumens to their damnation, the discipline of the Church would be harmful to souls, which is impious to maintain.

You are wrong. I posted the catechism's teaching: Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. BODers cannot accept this teaching, even though it teaches it explicitly, because it destroys the whole "salvation via accident" theory.

Secondly, the danger spoken off in the case of infants is departing this life in without the state of grace "since infant children have no other means of salvation than baptism" - but this danger - departing this life in sin and without sanctifying grace - is not present for adults when an accident unforeseen to them "deprives them of baptism".

This is another one of your provizos. You are not reading what is written. The catechism says NOTHING about depriving any adult baptism - only YOU do that. Does not the catechism state that for adults, that baptism is not to be deferred?
If infants, in all their innocence have no other means for salvation, how is it that you are able to make such a leap to falsely claim that the catechism teaches that adults do?

You are making the catechism to teach something it does not teach........"In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once.... as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred"

You somehow make: "Baptism is not to be deferred" into "the desire for baptism gives salvation".

Why do you do that? is spreading error your agenda?

Here' a thought experiment to see what it is clearly the catechism is teaching and how it would be understood by those for whom it was meant - why don't we teach hundreds of faithful for hundreds of years in from this catechism and see how they understand it?

Oh, wait, that was already done, and the results are already in. Every Catholic learned and simple alike, layman and clergy alike, faithful and priests alike, long before Vatican II was dreamt of knew baptism of blood and baptism of desire were Catholic doctrines and had been taught so in their catechism.

So you will have to come up with a better excuse for ignoring this fact - and also for ignoring the point of Pope St. Pius V's direct condemnation of your error when he that charity in catechumens does secure the remission of sins.

 

I asked you specifically to read what was written, but you have proven that you are 100% incapable of doing that.