That's your problem right there.

You can't argue with deluded zealots -- of any stripe. If you won't take the most basic advice most members of this forum would give you -- to just LEAVE THEM ALONE -- then any further advice we would give you would just be wasted here.

There's nothing you can say, no slam-dunk argument, that's going to make them say, "You know, you might be right..." NO. Not gonna happen.

Look up in the Bible the passage about putting your pearls before swine. Google it on DRBO.org.

Never argue with a crazy person. 10 year olds used to be taught that pearl of wisdom.

Well said, I totally agree. Best for you to simply stay out of that chat room.

"....Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. This is Canon 1556, which I failed to quote in my book, though I did state the fact of the law and the ecclesiastical admonition. These words mean: “The First Chair is judged by no one,” which means that none of the pope’s subjects are allowed to judge the status of him who sits on the throne of St. Peter. We may judge his theology and his public acts, as we are bound to judge the beliefs and ideas of everyone which whom we come into serious contact; but we may not judge whether he is a legitimate pope. Sedevacantists claim to be very expert about Canon 181, but Canon 1556 has somehow eluded them.

I should be able to stop right here, because a good Catholic should be satisfied with this directive. Holy Mother Church tells her children, “The legitimacy of the pope is not your concern; it is the concern of Christ only, because He alone has authority over the pope, and He has the power to solve any problems that may arise from his being illegitimate, should the case ever occur.” A sensible Catholic should be able to deuce from this directive that the legitimacy (or lack of it) of the pope does not bear on his religious obligations, that his religious obligations are no different whether the pope is legal or illegal, and that concern about the matter is a distraction from his relationship to Christ and the Church, a source of spiritual disquiet.

Therefore, to the extent that is possible, for the sake of his peace of mind and attention to his own spiritual welfare, the sensible Catholic should resolve to stay as far away from sedevacantists and their writings as possible. Furthermore, any Catholic who feels bound and determined to pursue this matter, no matter what the Church says, is neither sensible, nor pious, nor humble, no matter how well-intentioned he credits himself with being. Neither is he seriously desirous of growing in virtue and loving union with Christ; instead, he wants something to distract him from his prayers and pursuit of spiritual intimacy..." - Fr. Wathen, "Revisiting Sedevacantism" May 1, 2005

Also, Lad, why are the sedeprivationists more dogmatic?

It's unrelated.  Bishop Sanborn was a hardline dogmatic SV before he veered toward sedeprivationism.  Dimond brothers reject sedeprivationism and they're arguably the most dogmatic SVs out there ... except, strangely enough, they don't buy into the whole una cuм thing.

Here's one from the Dimond Brothers.  I actually wrote them about this issue, their dogmatism, and mentioned the theological notes, etc., hoping that they might turn away from their dogmatic SVism and dogmatic anti-BODism.  Let's just say they did not agree .

MAJOR:  It is a dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
MINOR:  Baptism of Desire would undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
CONCLUSION:  Baptism of Desire is heretical.

Certainly their Major is correct, since the Council of Trent clearly taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Check.

But wait?  What does "necessary" mean?  Things can be necessary in different ways (absolutely or relatively, by necessity of means and necessity of precept, etc.).  Theologians later unanimously agreed that the Sacrament is ABSOLUTELY necessary by NECESSITY OF MEANS.  But, guess what, theologians do not establish dogma.  Now, Sanborn and Cekada argue that they can, but I disagree.  But let's grant, for the sake of argument, that theologians authoritatively interpreted Trent so that it is dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means.

But the counter argument is this:  a disagreement with the Minor.  I do not buy it, and I think it's wrong, but here it is.  Well, even with Baptism of Desire, the Sacrament is necessary for salvation, because Baptism of Desire receives its efficacy from the Sacrament; one cannot have a desire for Baptism without it having the Sacrament of Baptism for its object.  Trent does not explicitly state that the ACTUAL RECEPTION of the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and did not dogmatically rule out that, as St. Robert Bellarmine held, the Sacrament could be received in voto.  Trent did not DOGMATICALLY RULE OUT that interpretation.  I think it's wrong, but I cannot be DOGMATICALLY certain about it.  So the MINOR is not dogmatically certain.  So the conclusion that Baptism of Desire, per se, is heretical does not follow DOGMATICALLY.

I think that the world would be better served if we returned to the scholastic mentality of expressing all arguments as syllogisms so they can be analyzed, instead of having to read through 900+ page books of rambling by people like S&S.  These books read like long novels.  St. Thomas was extremely concise and precise ... the reason for his brillianace.

I don't care what anyone argues or writes, I immediately start converting the argument into syllogisms, and that's what helps me come to my own conclusions.

I actually agree with the minor.  But I cannot assert it dogmatically.  So even though I agree with the Dimonds that Baptism of Desire is an error, I cannot agree with them that it is an error with the note of heresy, i.e. that dogma absolutely requires the rejection of Baptism of Desire.

@Ladislaus

I agree that the positions concerning the question whether the antipopes are popes don't make anyone a heretic. But I think that the BoD-topic looks different.

MAJOR: It is a dogma of Trent that the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
MINOR: All variants of Baptism of Desire deny that the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
CONCLUSION: Since Trent, Baptism of Desire is heretical.

The Council of Trent teaches how an adult can be translated from the state of enemy of God to the State of Grace, and strictly forbids any other teachings concerning the topic right in the introduction of cuм hoc tempore. The process taught by Trent includes the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. Trent doesn't leave space for an interpretation as a necessity of precept. The reception of the Sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification ( = translation to the State of Grace), and the candidate asks the Church for the (supernatural) Faith and receives the Faith (besides Hope and Love) by infusion by receiving the Sacrament.

I disagree.

#1 ... define necessary (absolutely or relatively, by necessity of means or necessity of precept).

Read my comment again (spoiler: it's not necessity of precept)

#2 ... Trent never stated the the actual reception of the Sacrament was necessary for salvation.

Read cuм hoc tempore. It is a description of the process how adults are are justified. The process includes the reception of the Sacrament. cuм hoc tempore describes that in all detail. You just have to read it.

St. Robert Bellarmine believed that one could receive the Sacrament in voto.

St. Robert Bellarmine is irrelevant. Trent is infallible, St. Robert Bellarmine isn't. He may err. Trent doesn't err. You didn't need any Magisterium to interpret dogma to know that sedevacantism is just an opinon. Now, here you don't need any St. Robert Bellarmine to interpret Trent. Trent is the dogma. St. Robert is irrelevant. Read St. Robert with respect to questions where you don't have infallible dogma.

In the case of Baptism of Desire, the Sacrament would still be operating as the instrumental cause of justification operating through the desire for it.

Read Trent before contradicting dogma. Trent explains how the actual reception of the Sacrament is necessary. The voto also is necessary, but not sufficient. Much more is necessary. The decree has several chapters.

Trent taught that the Sacrament of Confession was necessary to return to a state of grace for those who had fallen out of grace after Baptism.  But in that case, Trent taught that the Sacrament was necessary saltem in voto, "at least in desire".  In fact, St. Alphonsus argues from that in favor of Baptism of Desire.

St. Alphonsus is irrelevant. Trent is infallible, St. Alphonsus isn't. He may err. Trent doesn't err. St. Alphonsus quoted the wrong decree, which indicates an error of his. Also, he thereby added to cuм hoc tempore, which is forbidden by that same decree.

Now, I hold that these are mistaken opinions in that there's a tremendous difference between Baptism and Confession (as Trent itself explicitly states), but one could ARGUE without heresy that this isn't one of them.

They are mistaken, because Trent is solemn extraordinary infallible Magisterium.

Now, I reject BoD for many reasons, but I do not believe that a BoD of a St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Alphonsus is HERETICAL.  I think they're wrong and mistaken, but not heretical.

Sure, I know. That's why I wrote my previous comment.


Trent doesn't leave the question open, whether necessity of means or of precept.

Ladislaus,

the canonizations of St. Robert and St. Alphonsus don't express the idea that their books and teachings were free of errors, free of material heresies.

Theologians dispute, whether material heretics are separated from the Church. The canonizations guarantee that Robert and Alphonsus are in heaven, and St. Vinzenz of Lerins says (paraphrasing): even Saints erred, because God wants to test us, whether we prefer adoring humans above truth.

Theologians do not dispute, whether the dogmatic teachings of cuм hoc tempore are nothing but pure truth ("fallen from heaven"). (And if some should do, who cares?)

You're right Marion, speaking specifically on the sacrament of baptism, Trent teaches very clearly that "...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [justification] cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration..."  but then what they say next effectively kills any possibility of a BOD by saying ...."or the desire thereof."

What Lad likes to do is he likes to strive to find a middle ground is all. 

Guys, split off your BoD aspect of the discussion into another thread, or this whole thread is going to the Feeneyism ghetto.

You're getting deep into the weeds on that issue here.