I'm really beginning to wonder if you've ever really read the Roman Catechism in your life yourself.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

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?

Because infants are unable to desire while adults are. This is the standard teaching of all the Saints and Doctors which is plainly repeated in the Catechism.

Does not the catechism state that for adults, that baptism is not to be deferred?

In case of a foreseen necessity, yes. Why do you ignore this obvious point in the Catechism - it is speaking of a known case of imminent danger of death.

"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"

BODers cannot accept this teaching, even though it teaches it explicitly, because it destroys the whole "salvation via accident" theory.

You are wrong because the Catechism clearly teaches that during the delay ordinarily prescribed an accident unforeseen to the catechumen and the Church would "make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters". That's verbatim from the Catechism, and you deny it.

You claim falsely and absurdly that the Catechism when it says "avails them to grace and righteousness" is only speaking of the disposition for baptism. And when it says the accident makes it impossible to receive baptism, you pretend it only prevents them temporarily from doing so. When it says the same danger of departing this life without grace present for infants is not ordinarily present for adults because desire would avail in that case, you nonetheless pretend that "salvation via desire" is not taught.

Your basic problem is your incapability and unwillingness to submit to authority at all, not only past but present as well - countless persons have read that Catechism before you including living traditional authorities and they unanimously differ completely from your own reading of it, yet you insist they are all mistaken but that you alone know the true meaning of the Catechism. This is where dogmatic Feeneyism always leads and is one of its deplorable results.

from nishant

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.

Council of Trent said:
"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"

-Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins… but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”

-Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

Yes, the effects of Sacramental Penance can be attained by a desire for the Sacrament, which the Council explains twice in Session 6 and once in Session 14.
That's three times the council specifically states that the desire for penance can suffice while the Council NEVER says that desire can suffice for Sacramental Baptism. The Council states that both the sacrament of Penance AND Baptism are necessary, but for Penance it adds the exception whereas for Baptism it DOES NOT. Your point is easily refuted.

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.

It is not the same thing with Catechumens because they are not in the Church yet. If someone receives the sacrament of penance through perfect contrition without the actual sacrament, they are already in the Church.

-Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of Penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”

We know that the only entrance into the Church is though Baptism and outside the Church there is no remission of sins.

-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…"

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?

I wonder if you understand what the difference between fallible and infallible is.
The letter from Pope Innocent III to the Bishop of Metz is not infallible. If it is then the letter he wrote to the Archbishop of Lyons holds the same weight.

-Pope Innocent III, Ex Parte tua, to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12, 1206: “Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circuмcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arrival at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.”

This letter is of the same authority as the one you quote, so.... I guess we are to believe that circuмcision remits original sin.

The jist is, they *all* labored. They *all* performed the same job for the same owner.

The "jist" isn't whatever you want to make it. Some labored ALL day and some labored a mere FRACTION of a day yet they received the same reward. Some murmered about that apparent discrepancy in effort and were rebuked for it.

The Catechism teaches. It is phrased and worded in such a way so as to communicate specific teaching without confusion to anyone with high school comprehension.

And apparently your "high school comprehension" isn't all that good. NOBODY has had the same "comprehension" that you have.

 

Quote

The Catechism teaches. It is phrased and worded in such a way so as to communicate specific teaching without confusion to anyone with high school comprehension.

And apparently your "high school comprehension" isn't all that good. NOBODY has had the same "comprehension" that you have.

 

You even say the Council of Trent is nobody................


Whereas there is, at this time, not without the shipwreck of many souls, and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine disseminated touching Justification; the sacred and holy, oecuмenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost,--the most reverend lords, Giammaria del Monte, bishop of Palaestrina, and Marcellus of the title of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, priest, cardinals of the holy Roman Church, and legates apostolic a latere, presiding therein, in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III., by the providence of God, Pope,-purposes, unto the praise and glory of Almighty God, the tranquillising of the Church, and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.




Always remember, Trent proclaimed: "As it is written"........[John 3:5]"

Quote

The Catechism teaches. It is phrased and worded in such a way so as to communicate specific teaching without confusion to anyone with high school comprehension.

And apparently your "high school comprehension" isn't all that good. NOBODY has had the same "comprehension" that you have.

 

PLEASE stop saying this. Just because you say that nobody comprehends issues the way that Stubborn does, does not make it true. This is the worst argument I've ever heard. I, for one, comprehend it the way he does. So what.

When a Pope speaks ex Cathedra he is explaining what we are to believe about the Lord's Revelation. The definitions have to be clear enough for common people like us to understand. There can be no recession from the meaning that was once declared. There can be no assigning a different meaning or adding something that was not intended by the original definition.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Most of the saints that say what you are saying have said the exact opposite and contradicted themselves at one time or another.  The magisterium does not do that. It has never taught BOD/BOB/II.

I'm so sick of the lies. Stop saying that no one else believes like stubborn or me. It is not true. Come up with some magisterial statements or something to prove your point, but stop lying.

PLEASE stop saying this. Just because you say that nobody comprehends issues the way that Stubborn does, does not make it true. This is the worst argument I've ever heard. I, for one, comprehend it the way he does. So what.

No authority understands and explains it the way you and Stubborn "understand" it. You fail to see the significance of this because you don't understand the rule of faith for a Catholic nor do you respect the authorized teachers in the Church.

The only ones who understand it are those who read what is written - "As it is written." Always try to remember that.

How many baptisms are there? Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

....It is adulterous, it is impious, it is sacrilegious, whatsoever is instituted by man to the breach of God's disposition. Get ye far from such men: they are blind, and leaders of the blind........."Perilous and miserable it is that there are now among them as many faiths as wills, and as many doctrines as manners; whilst modes of faith are written as men will, or as they will, so are understood. Whereas the one truth teaches there is but one God, one Lord, one baptism, and also one faith: hence whilst more faiths are made, they begin by falling from that which is the only faith, and end in having no faith at all." - from the Haydock Bible