I said NOBODY noticing such a grave error.

That would be the logical progression if we did not read the other statements of the Magisterium.

All the canons you cited only establish point 2, which as I told you we both admit. It is point 1 above which is in dispute for which I cited to you this canon "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.” "

How will you refute that?

Your argument is the one that fails.

I see that you did not understand what I said at all. Do you know what is the matter of penance? As the Roman Catechism tells us, "sins which are destroyed by Penance may properly be called the matter of Penance" - this is analogous to water, which is the matter of baptism. This is necessary for the actual sacrament, but not when the sacramental effect is had in desire.

You introduced a false principle in trying to prove your argument, I don't think you realized the implications of that principle, it was something like this - "If a sacramental effect can be had in desire, the matter of the sacrament is not necessary for confecting the actual sacrament". This is plainly false, as proven by the counterexample to this I stated above. The matter is always necessary for the actual sacrament and that is what the canon is saying.

Anyway, moving on, I asked you a question earlier you didn't answer - do you admit there are a great many doctrines Catholics are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, as Pius IX, Pius XII and many other Popes taught? That non-infallible ordinary Magisterial teaching of the Popes on these subjections is binding and authoritative? If you do, we will come back to Pope Innocent II and Innocent III, who both taught BOD, and the latter of whom taught both BOD and EENS because, of course, there is no contradiction between them, since bod produces the same effects of sacramental baptism in that regard.

Quote from: SJB

I said NOBODY noticing such a grave error.

I already proved to you that there were many others in Church history that "see things the way" I do.
The fact that no pope has condemned it does not prove that they approve it.
Please name an encyclical or other papal docuмent that condemns St. Thomas' teaching that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin. Instead, the popes consistently recommend St. Thomas' works. God allows some errors to arise among the church men (not infallible teachings) so that He can see who will reject it and hold fast to the official and infallible teachings of the Church; i.e. that only water baptism remits original sin and is the only way to become a member of the Church and that water baptism is the only door through which one can enter heaven.

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

Commentary:19] There must be also heresies: By reason of the pride and perversity of man's heart; not by God's will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable

No, you need to demonstrate who saw the "error" and commented on it. They need to explain the nature of the "error."

To Nishant:

All the canons you cited only establish point 2, which as I told you we both admit. It is point 1 above which is in dispute for which I cited to you this canon "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.” "

How will you refute that?

I already refuted it...twice. Here it is again.

"As I have said before, the sacraments of Baptism and Penance are both necessary. There is a difference though. This difference lies in the fact that the effects of the sacrament of penance can be attained through a desire for it as Trent explains three times. Nowhere does the Church infallibly decree that the effects of Baptism can be had by a desire only without the reception of the sacrament.

1.--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.”

2 and 3.--Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification:"...Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God..." "

I see that you did not understand what I said at all. Do you know what is the matter of penance? As the Roman Catechism tells us, "sins which are destroyed by Penance may properly be called the matter of Penance" - this is analogous to water, which is the matter of baptism. This is necessary for the actual sacrament, but not when the sacramental effect is had in desire.

Prove to me, from a Magisterial Pronouncement, that the sacramental effect of Baptism (i.e. membership in the Church and remission of original sin) can be had in desire at all, let alone without water.

You introduced a false principle in trying to prove your argument, I don't think you realized the implications of that principle, it was something like this - "If a sacramental effect can be had in desire, the matter of the sacrament is not necessary for confecting the actual sacrament". This is plainly false, as proven by the counterexample to this I stated above. The matter is always necessary for the actual sacrament and that is what the canon is saying.

That's not what I said and you are being deceptive. I said the effects of Baptism cannot be had in desire only. The desire only does not constitute the sacrament. The effects can only take place in adults above the age of reason if they desire the sacrament AND actually receive the sacrament.

Anyway, moving on, I asked you a question earlier you didn't answer - do you admit there are a great many doctrines Catholics are bound to believe under pain of mortal sin, as Pius IX, Pius XII and many other Popes taught?

I did answer it and YES.

That non-infallible ordinary Magisterial teaching of the Popes on these subjections is binding and authoritative?

When you say non-infallible, I assume you mean fallible. On that assumption I'll say there are NO fallible ordinary magisterial teachings of the popes. ALL teachings of the Magisterium are infallible, whether it's ordinary or extraordinary. The Church however has only defined what constitutes the extraordinary or solemn magisterial teachings. The Catholic Encyc. only says that the ordinary magisterium is concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has already been declared. We do not have a definitive definition of it like the one we got from the Vatican Council on the extraordinary. So when a pope is speaking or writing to bishops or cardinals or a specific group of people or in any other private capacity, he does not enjoy papal infallibility automatically, especially when he is teaching something that is not backed by official declarations.

 

If you do, we will come back to Pope Innocent II and Innocent III, who both taught BOD, and the latter of whom taught both BOD and EENS because, of course, there is no contradiction between them, since bod produces the same effects of sacramental baptism in that regard.

Give me what you got on these two Popes and I'll refute it because I have the teaching of the Church and you have the teachings of men. Do not confuse this with pride on my part. This is not my opinion. Your belief has been created by men and not the infallible teachings of the Church, which are easy to read and understand and must be believed.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Isaac Jogues

Quote from: SJB

I said NOBODY noticing such a grave error.

I already proved to you that there were many others in Church history that "see things the way" I do.
The fact that no pope has condemned it does not prove that they approve it.
Please name an encyclical or other papal docuмent that condemns St. Thomas' teaching that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin. Instead, the popes consistently recommend St. Thomas' works. God allows some errors to arise among the church men (not infallible teachings) so that He can see who will reject it and hold fast to the official and infallible teachings of the Church; i.e. that only water baptism remits original sin and is the only way to become a member of the Church and that water baptism is the only door through which one can enter heaven.

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

Commentary:19] There must be also heresies: By reason of the pride and perversity of man's heart; not by God's will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable

No, you need to demonstrate who saw the "error" and commented on it. They need to explain the nature of the "error."

I do not need to do that. You need to explain why you will not accept God's Truth.

Yes, you do, actually.

Further, you are claiming that I need to listen to you, which is insanity.

Nowhere does the Church infallibly decree that the effects of Baptism can be had by a desire only without the reception of the sacrament.  Church infallibly decree that the effects of Baptism can be had by a desire only without the reception of the sacrament.

She does in fact decree precisely that when she decrees that penance is necessary in the same way that baptism is.

But anyway, moving on from this, Pope Pius IX's Encyclical does meet your next statement, "a Magisterial Pronouncement the sacramental effect of Baptism can be had in desire at all, let alone without water" because it says they attain eternal life through an efficacious virtue.

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.

 Now this is precisely the Magisterial affirmation of the doctrine of St. Thomas and also the Salmanticenses about internal inspiration of the invincibly ignorant by God enabling the persons to make an act of supernatural faith and love or desire as the outcome of the efficacious virtues of "faith which works by charity" as St. Thomas says.

That's not what I said

That's what you implied, without yourself understanding it, when you used the canon on the matter of the actual sacrament of baptism to try and argue against the possibility of it being had in desire. That argument fails for the reason I've shown.

You've also clearly completely misunderstood as your posts show the doctrine of the ordinary and universal magisterium, as Pius IX and Pius XII teach.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians

Now you'll probably deny the above, but if not, then you must admit both Pope Innocent II and Pope Innocent III's authoritative teaching on the doctrine of BOD must be held on pain of mortal sin.

Quote

Nowhere does the Church infallibly decree that the effects of Baptism can be had by a desire only without the reception of the sacrament.  Church infallibly decree that the effects of Baptism can be had by a desire only without the reception of the sacrament.

She does in fact decree precisely that when she decrees that penance is necessary in the same way that baptism is.

It amazing how subversive you are. You are injecting something into your statement that is blatantly false.

--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.”

Point to the part in this passage where it says that penance is necessary in the same way as Baptism. You can't because it's not there. In fact, the council states three times, as I have posted before a couple of times, that the sacrament of Penance can be had in desire. It makes no exceptions for Baptism.

But anyway, moving on from this, Pope Pius IX's Encyclical does meet your next statement, "a Magisterial Pronouncement the sacramental effect of Baptism can be had in desire at all, let alone without water" because it says they attain eternal life through an efficacious virtue.

Quote

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pope Pius IX said:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.

First of all, the encyclical would not reach the status of Dogmatic. There are probably statements in it that fit the ordinary magisterium when it reiterates dogma. As a whole, it is addressed to the Cardinals and Bishops of Italy only, so that it is not Ex Cathedra or part of the Solemn Magisterium.
Having said that, here is my response to your usage of this encyclical.
If you would have quoted the sentence prior to your quote, it says this:

“And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life."

It seems you have deceitfully left out another important part to a passage you are quoting. The pope says that when people are in error and separated from the Church, they cannot attain eternal life.
He goes on to say, as you quoted, that they can attain eternal life through the operating power of divine light and grace. We know from scripture that the divine light is the gospel. When we put together the whole passage, we can infer that these people who are ignorant of the faith, but are truly of good will, God will send them the grace they need to convert. I know that this isn't explicitly what it says, but it is the only logical way it can be interpreted. Since those that are in error and separated from the Church, cannot attain eternal life, they would not be able to attain it through ignorance.

You've also clearly completely misunderstood as your posts show the doctrine of the ordinary and universal magisterium, as Pius IX and Pius XII teach.

Quote

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII said:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians

Have I really? In this very encyclical, Pius XII teaches in Humani Generis:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God

Although I agree with the statement that you quoted, I do not agree that evolution should be allowed, nor would anyone who believes in God and that His Scriptures are inerrant.
So, while encyclicals that do not reach the level of Solemn, have teachings in them that are infallible, they cannot automatically be taken as infallible as a whole.

Now you'll probably deny the above, but if not, then you must admit both Pope Innocent II and Pope Innocent III's authoritative teaching on the doctrine of BOD must be held on pain of mortal sin.

In the quote from Innocent II he says that the Priest was saved by a Baptism of Desire without the Sacrament. First, have you ever, ever heard of a priest that was NOT Baptized. Second, they are not sure who actually wrote this, some say it was Innocent III. Third, there is no date ascribed to it: "of uncertain time". Does this seem like it's a reliable source for doctrine?

In the quote from Innocent III he says the faith in the sacrament was all that was needed and not the sacrament itself. First this is a letter to Bishop of Metz. In a letter to the Archbishop of Lyons he said:

"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.”Denz. 410

So we are to believe the error that circuмcision remitted original sin because this letter holds the exact same authority as the one to the Bishop of Metz. We know that circuмcision did not remit original sin. Second, his statement is contradicted by his other statement that are protected by infallibility:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”

He also contradicts it in a letter of the same authority as the one you quote:

Pope Innocent III, letter to Thorias, Archbishop of Nidaros:  “You have asked whether children ought to be regarded as Christians whom, when in danger of death, on account of scarcity of water and absence of a priest, the simplicity of some has anointed on the head and the breast, and between the shoulders with a sprinkling of saliva for baptism.  We answer that since in baptism two things always, that is, ‘the word and the element,’ are required by necessity, according to which Truth says concerning the word:  ‘Going into the world etc.’ [Luke 16:15; Matt. 28:19], and the same concerning the element says: ‘Unless anyone etc.’ [John 3:5] you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.”