Three Syllogistic Proofs on the Absolute Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water

I certainly do not take credit for any of this; rather, these syllogisms come from a number of different sources. Ultimately, of course, they come from the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, so it is to Him alone whom the credit for these resides.

Now, of course, some will say that this is "not what the Church teaches." With respect to Sacramental Baptism of Water, the Church teaches, if through no fault of your own, it was impossible for you to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water, then you could, perhaps, receive some (but, certainly, not all) of the graces that you would have received through Sacramental Baptism of Water in the form of "Baptism of Desire." Of course, what is impossible with man is definitively possible with the One and Triune God. So, while the Church's normative teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is absolutely correct, the Church also teaches, perhaps somewhat more subtly, that Baptism of Desire (and its "cousin," Baptism of Blood) never, ever happens, at least in the complete absence of Sacramental Baptism in Water. We know this to be so, because of the following:

Syllogistic Proofs of the Absolute Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water

On the Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water by the Command of the One and Triune God.

1) Major Premise -- The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

2) 1st Minor Premise -- The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "...no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

3) 2nd Minor Premise -- God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things, ex cathedra: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

Conclusion:

"There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

On the Necessity of natural water for Sacramental Baptism.

1) Major Premise -- Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

2) Minor Premise -- True and natural water is necessary for Baptism.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 2, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

3) Conclusion -- True and natural water is necessary for salvation.

On the Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water due to the One and Triune God's Perfection.

God desires that which is perfect for human beings, His Creation.

1) Major Premise: The One and Triune God is a Perfect Being; as such, He desires that which is Perfect for His Creation.

2) Minor Premise: Human beings are part of God's creation.

3) Conclusion: God desires that which is perfect for human beings.

God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.

1) Major Premise: God desires that which is perfect for human beings.

2) Minor Premise: Sacramental Baptism in Water is the "the perfect remedy of salvation." (Council of Vienne, Denzinger, #482)

3) Conclusion : God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.

God can bring about Sacramental Baptism in Water, that which He desires, for all human beings.

1) Major Premise: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; as such, He can bring about that which He desires, respecting, of course, human free will.

2) Minor Premise: God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.

3) Conclusion : God can bring about Sacramental Baptism for all human beings, as long as we cooperate with God's grace.

MRyan,
You know I probably wouldn't have consider "Fenneyism" if you weren't so nasty. You just come off as so belligerent that you remind me of Fox news hosts that just uses insult and spin as a form of argumentation. So I thought you was trying to cover-up something as usually Fox host are too.

You say that you don't consider "Feeneyism" a heresy but that isn't the tone you use. You make it sound like Columba has rejected the Magesterium but it was already proved on another thread that the Magesterium says he can hold his position and be a Catholic in good standing.

So if it was cut and dried as you seem to imply, in your inimitable "lovable" aggressive way, then Feeneyites would be considered heretics and unable to teach their error.

Actually, Cowboy, I did come down on you a bit too severely in my last post - my apologies. I tend to do that when I reply to the "group-think" of Feeneyites in a specific response. I can assure you that is nothing personal - you just happened to be in the crossfire.

Of course, you are the one who said more than once that I had already "lost" this debate, so I really don't care what you "think" when it is obvious that you do not even know what this debate is all about, and never have.

I don't mean to insult you when I say that you do not have the tools to adequately address this subject, I am only stating an obvious fact based on your responses which indicate that you are not well-read on this subject and that you are, more often than not, thoroughly confused, and most often entirely mistaken.

This has always been about submission of the mind and will to the teaching authority of the Church, specifically with respect to baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and I am still waiting for a Feeneyite to explain to me why they believe one is free to "reject" the Church's magisterial teaching and even accuse the Church of teaching error, without ever conceding that she teaches baptism of blood/baptism of desire through her official, authentic and ordinary teaching instruments of the Magisterium (or by suggesting that the ordinary Magisterium has been teaching error since the Council of Trent).

The only thing you can respond with is "So, you admit the CCC is not infallible?"

Like I said; you don't get it. So why waste our time?

Jehanne wrote:
I certainly do not take credit for any of this; rather, these syllogisms come from a number of different sources.

That’s good; I would not want to take credit for this nonsense either.

Jehanne wrote:Ultimately, of course, they come from the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, so it is to Him alone whom the credit for these resides.

No, ultimately, they come from the private, fallible and flawed interpretations of men. The Church does not teach “syllogisms” through her Supreme Magisterium, she teaches doctrine.

Jehanne wrote:Now, of course, some will say that this is "not what the Church teaches." With respect to Sacramental Baptism of Water, the Church teaches, if through no fault of your own, it was impossible for you to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water, then you could, perhaps, receive some (but, certainly, not all) of the graces that you would have received through Sacramental Baptism of Water in the form of "Baptism of Desire." Of course, what is impossible with man is definitively possible with the One and Triune God. So, while the Church's normative teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is absolutely correct, the Church also teaches, perhaps somewhat more subtly, that Baptism of Desire (and its "cousin," Baptism of Blood) never, ever happens, at least in the complete absence of Sacramental Baptism in Water. We know this to be so, because of the following:

Nonsense; if baptism of blood and baptism of desire are true, as you suggest, they are sufficient for salvation precisely as the Church teaches. The essential grace necessary for salvation is sanctifying grace, and every soul who dies in state of grace is assured of the beatific vision – de fide.

To deny this is heresy. So Feeneyites get around this by denigrating the status of sanctifying grace “by the desire thereof” to that of the unfulfilled Justification of the Old Law; meaning, it does not represent, since the promulgation of the Gospel, the Justification defined by Trent as that translation to an adopted son and heir to the Kingdom. The translation and state of grace through the bonds of faith and charity (and desire) becomes part of the un-fulfilled process of Justification, but it cannot save anyone until the Holy Ghost abides in the soul; which can only take place, according to the Feeneyite doctrine, in the “true” Justification effected by water baptism.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Jehanne wrote:Syllogistic Proofs of the Absolute Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water

On the Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water by the Command of the One and Triune God.

1) Major Premise -- The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

Oops. So the “proof” that “God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water” (which is true) is found in Session 6, Chapter 4, which is actually a dogmatic introduction to “A description … of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.”

The Church has always understood that this description of Justification (being effected by the laver of regeneration, or by the desire for it) is based on the divine precept of our Lord, “as it is written”; meaning, the Church understands John 3:5 in the context of the absolute necessity of being “born again” by the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it; for no one can enter the kingdom without this interior regeneration and re-birth.

Your “syllogism” is already off to a shaky start since the premise is misleading and flawed.

Jehanne wrote:1st Minor Premise -- The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "...no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

Quite so, but why would the Council declare that the justified (assuming for the moment that a particular catechumen, for example, is in a state of grace) should pray for what he cannot do, which clearly suggests that “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.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

Clear enough .. the Church has spoken.

Jehanne wrote:3) 2nd Minor Premise -- God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things, ex cathedra: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

Yes, “God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands”, and will see to it that His command to be baptized is fulfilled by the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it, in every one of His elect. In fact, that's what the Church teaches.

Jehanne wrote:Conclusion:

"There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

Now what does such a "conclusion" have to do with the Supreme Magisterium of the Church allegedly teaching that no one can attain the beatific vision without water baptism? That God CAN secure Baptism (in water) for every one of His elect does NOT mean that He must or that He will.

Jehanne wrote:On the Necessity of natural water for Sacramental Baptism.

1) Major Premise -- Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

2) Minor Premise -- True and natural water is necessary for Baptism.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 2, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

3) Conclusion -- True and natural water is necessary for salvation.

Here we have the appalling Feeneyite logical fallacy in all of its resplendent glory. Not even Br. Andre believes this one. See my previous post exposing the egregious error of such a fallacious “syllogism”.

Jehanne wrote:On the Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water due to the One and Triune God's Perfection.

God desires that which is perfect for human beings, His Creation.

1) Major Premise: The One and Triune God is a Perfect Being; as such, He desires that which is Perfect for His Creation.

2) Minor Premise: Human beings are part of God's creation.

3) Conclusion: God desires that which is perfect for human beings.

No, that which is “perfect” is God. “Perfection” pertains to holiness (patterned on our Lord’s holiness), with our Blessed Mother being the closest thing to human “perfection” (aided by the fullness of grace) there is. “Perfection” is measured by the degree (sanctifying grace) to which we are united to our Lord in the bonds of faith and charity. Baptism is the “perfect remedy” because it supplies for the deficiencies of sinful beings who cannot be trusted to respond always with that "perfect charity" desired by God. But, is water Baptism the only means by which man is Justified and “perfected” in holiness? No.

Again, another flawed premise.

Jehanne wrote:God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.

1) Major Premise: God desires that which is perfect for human beings.

2) Minor Premise: Sacramental Baptism in Water is the "the perfect remedy of salvation." (Council of Vienne, Denzinger, #482)

3) Conclusion : God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.

God can bring about Sacramental Baptism in Water, that which He desires, for all human beings.

1) God desires that which is perfect for human beings.
2) God desires the salvation of all men.
3) Conclusion: God can bring about the salvation of all men, that which He desires, for all human beings.

Hey, this is easy; universal salvation in one simple syllogism. Your friend Karl Rahner would be proud.

Jehanne wrote:1) Major Premise: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; as such, He can bring about that which He desires, respecting, of course, human free will.

2) Minor Premise: God desires Sacramental Baptism in Water for all human beings.

3) Conclusion : God can bring about Sacramental Baptism for all human beings, as long as we cooperate with God's grace.

Well, He certainly can; just like He can save all men, since that is what He desires – the perfection of all men in heaven.

Gee, this is fun – do you have any more?

MRyan a quick response to your reply to cowboy.

Since when did one have to hold a degree in theology to understand what the Church teaches?
The theologians' work is to consider the various arguments for and against such n such a possibility/probability; it's the job of the Magesterium to consider the outcome of that work and present to the faithful in clear language that which they must/must not believe.
These are presented most admirably in her dogmatic declarations. Maybe you could tell us why the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" was presented in such an ill-defined manner when the very purpose of the dogma was to make clear to all the members of the universal Church what they must believe concerning the necessary requirements of salvation.
Why aren't there disputations going on concerning the other 357 dogmas?
Answer: Because the dogmas themselves are self explanatory.
"These positive articles of faith have the function of fundamental principles which the faithful accepts without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, Who is absolute truth." (Sources of Catholic Dogma. Denzinger)

The only qualification one needs to debate you is an understanding of the English language and as there is no dispute concerning the English translation of the dogma in question I take it that we can agree that it is a sound translation.

Whether or not you have a degree in theology (I think you would make a good Devils Advocate theologian) is irrelevent. Cowboy or anyone else here can understand dogma, Church Councils and catechisms without every last Catholic needing a theology qualification (maybe with the exception of most of that which proceded from Vat II). That we take our Catholic faith seriously enough to engage in discussion should be qualification enough and you come across quite arrogant IMO when you suggest that cowboy isn't worthy of challenging your "superior" arguments.

MRyan wrote:God can bring about Sacramental Baptism in Water, that which He desires, for all human beings.

1) God desires that which is perfect for human beings.
2) God desires the salvation of all men.
3) Conclusion: God can bring about the salvation of all men, that which He desires, for all human beings.

Hey, this is easy; universal salvation in one simple syllogism. Your friend Karl Rahner would be proud.

This is a perfectly valid syllogism, and what better way to bring about the salvation of all human beings than to employ the perfect remedy of Sacramental Baptism in Water if only during an individual's infancy? But, alas, we live in a fallen world with human free will; still, for those who are truly worthy of eternal life, your syllogism makes perfect sense! I could not ask for a better proof of "Feeneyism"!

columba wrote:MRyan a quick response to your reply to cowboy.

Since when did one have to hold a degree in theology to understand what the Church teaches?

When did I say that a degree in theology is necessary to understand what the Church teaches?

Does it take a degree in theology to understand the difference between the submission of the mind and will to a non-defined but authoritative teaching of the ordinary magisteriaum, and the assent of faith to a binding matter of faith (revealed truth)? No? Then why do always act like you do not know the difference by constantly saying that I hold that the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire are “binding doctrines of the faith”? How many times do I need to explain the Church’s teaching on this subject before it registers?

This is no different from Cowboy’s accusation that I hold that non-submission to baptism of blood and baptism of desire is heresy, and that Feeneyites are heretics. I can explain this until I am blue in the face but it will not make any difference – the distortions will continue because that is the easiest way to discredit your opponent – make his arguments appear to be extreme by mischaracterizing them. Cowboy has done this time and again, and so have you. You do not seem interested in addressing my actual arguments, so you make up your own version of them since a straw man is easier to dismiss than actual arguments.

Does one need a degree in theology to know that the Church did not in fact “get rid” of the traditional doctrine on Limbo? No? Then why is the accusation made that she did?

Does one need a degree in theology to know that Canons 2 and 5 from Session Seven of Trent do not represent anathemas against the Church’s teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire?

No, it doesn’t, but it does take some common sense and the humility to admit that the authors of the Catechism of Trent and the post-Tridintine theologians, saints, doctors and popes might have had a better understanding of these Canons and the specific Protestant heresies they condemned, without for a moment suggesting that they were dogmatic condemnations of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

A little theology might help to understand the subtle but crucial differences between Luther’s and Calvin’s heresies and the orthodox doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire; but it is not necessary when one simply places their trust and faith in the teaching Church.

However, your definition of the “Authoritative Teaching Church” would appear to be in conflict with mine – and with the Church’s. Why you do not understand these differences and distinctions; or think that you know better than the Church and all of her post-Tridentine theologians, I can only guess at; but you are on record as saying that you hold that the meaning of the dogmatic canons (and he thrice defined declarations of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) positively excludes (even if only “implicitly”) unity with the Church (being “joined” to her Body) and excludes salvation for the catechumen, the martyr and anyone else Justified by “desire” who is not finally Baptized in water.

In other words, you accuse the so-called “fallible” teaching authority of the Church to be in opposition to the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and have thus set up the heretical notion of “dueling Magisteriums”.

I hope you are not trying to divert our attention from the Invincible Ignorance and Salvation thread where I addressed your assertion “that the clear words of the ex cathedra declaration 'implicitly' excludes from salvation the non-baptized martyr and catechumen, as well as those who may be ignorant of the Church." Your response should be most revealing. While you dismissed it, you are in fact one of those who do in fact “disagree[s] with the true Church [on baptism of blood and baptism of desire and] complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis)

And of course, your response to what follows from Pope Pius XII is most revealing:

21 … For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Your “translation” of the “plain English” suggests that Pope Pius XII is saying the “Teaching Authority of the Church … does override the opinions and interpretations of theologians (in many cases) when making such [dogmatic] declarations” from her supreme Magisterium, and thus, that “The Teaching Authority of the Church” in her dogmatic declarations overrides the “The Teaching Authority of the Church” of the authoritative, living and permanent Magisterium when it authentically teaches a doctrine that she has explicitly taught for centuries (baptism of blood/baptism of desire) that you falsely claim is opposed to her own dogmatic declarations.

I’m sorry, but is THAT what Pope Pius XII said? It’s amazing how you can twist his words to mean the opposite of what they say. But then again, this is nothing new.

columba wrote:Maybe you could tell us why the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" was presented in such an ill-defined manner when the very purpose of the dogma was to make clear to all the members of the universal Church what they must believe concerning the necessary requirements of salvation.

It was not defined in an “ill-defined” manner, for it was clearly defined that there is no salvation outside the Church, that one must be joined to her for salvation; that we profess one Faith, one Church and one Baptism; that those who have not persevered in the Church cannot be saved, and that unity with the Church includes subjection to the Holy Father.

The Church has always understood her defined dogmas on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is the same manner that recognizes the possibility of salvation by baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and nowhere do the defined dogmas say otherwise. In fact, the very pope (Innocent III) who defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) that “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.”; is the same Innocent III who issued an official decree in 1206 on baptism of desire that concerned a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized:

“If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (“Debitum pastoralis officii”, Dz 413)

It would seem Pope Innocent III missed the “implied” meaning of the dogma he would soon define; but thank goodness that the faith of the fallible pope is irrelevant to his infallible dogmatic definitions that clearly “imply” a meaning opposed to how the same Innocent III and the living magisterium say they understand it, know what I mean?

Btw, columba, the documents of Pope Innocent II (“Apostolicum Sedem”, which is also attributed to Innocent III in the CIC decretals) and Pope Innocent III’s declaration, both of which support Baptism of Desire, are, as Fr. Cekada points out¸ “Epistolae, which in Canon Law are classed among official Pontifical Acts. Both documents were included in the Corpus Juris Canonici, the official collection of church laws which preceded the 1917 Code of Canon Law.”

But, I suppose like all Canon Law, the Roman Catechisms, Papal Allocutions, Vatican Councils, declarations of the Holy office and other magisterial instruments containing “non-defined” teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, they have been “overruled” by you and the plain words of the dogmatic definitions, isn’t that right?

However, the gaping hole in your argument is the fact that the Church has always understood her dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the same manner, and we would have to wait until 1952 for Fr. Feeney to reverse his position on baptism of desire to finally understand that Pope Innocent III’s dogmatic declaration actually excludes baptism of blood and baptism of desire and thus “overrides” his official decree stating his belief and the Church’s understanding of baptism of desire. And only in 1952 would we learn that Trent’s Canons 2 and 5 of Session 7 actually condemns baptism of blood an baptism of desire, which would have come as a big surprise to the Tridentine pope who promulgated the Catechism of Trent, and to all of the post-Tridentine theologians, scholastics, saints, doctors and popes; with not a single dissenting voice among them on baptism of blood and baptism of desire; many of whom explained these canons precisely as the Church has always understood them, as condemnations against the Protestant heresies. It would also come as a big surprise to Br. Andre.

And you say Pope Innocent III simply overrode his teaching on baptism of desire when he defined that no one at all can be saved outside the Church?

One cannot make this stuff up.

But, my question to you is what gives you the authority to change the Church’s understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was once declared to an understanding that she has never held?

columba wrote:Why aren't there disputations going on concerning the other 357 dogmas?
Answer: Because the dogmas themselves are self explanatory.

"These positive articles of faith have the function of fundamental principles which the faithful accepts without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, Who is absolute truth." (Sources of Catholic Dogma. Denzinger)

The correct answer is we have a teaching authority (the magisterium) that tells us what the dogmas mean and how we are to hold them. By the words; yes, but only how the Church understands those same words of “absolute truth”. Furthermore, not every dogma has been fully explained; elements of which may require further development (without rescinding from its essential once defined meaning). To deny this is to deny a fundamental doctrine and the authority of the Church over her own doctrines.

Are you actually suggesting that there are 357 defined dogmas in the same category of the solemnly defined dogma on the Assumption? Go ahead and make your case that the last portion of the Bull Cantate Domino on martyrdom is a dogmatic definition “like” that defined in Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus?

And to pretend that there are or were not disputations concerning the other so-called “357 dogmas” only proves what a poor student of history you are. The primary reason the Church formally “defines” a revealed teaching is to put such “disputations” to rest.

I have no idea where you got the idea that there are “357 dogmas” of the faith, but a quick perusal pointed to a link titled “The 358 Dogmas of the Catholic Church”, where there are, allegedly, “255 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith” and another “102 Certain Truths Not yet defined By the Magisterium”.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Here is one of the “self-explanatory dogmas”:

Number “123. There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens).”

“Truly sufficient” for what – salvation? No dispute here among the theologians and their respective schools of grace, columba? What planet do you live on?

But do tell us, what does the plain meaning of the words tell you since it requires no interpretation?

And why do you hold to an understanding of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (that excludes the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire) that the Church has never held?

columba wrote:The only qualification one needs to debate you is an understanding of the English language and as there is no dispute concerning the English translation of the dogma in question I take it that we can agree that it is a sound translation.

You mean like the non-disputed translation of Innocent III’s definition on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the “clear words” of which you say “implicitly’ excludes baptism of desire; the very same doctrine taught by Innocent III in his official Letter to the Bishop of Metz, “Debitum pastoralis officii”?

You mean like Canon 2 of Trent, Session 7, which has NEVER been understood by the Church as a condemnation of baptism of blood or baptism of desire, but would be “interpreted” by some Feeneyites as a formal condemnation of baptism of blood and baptism of desire?

You’re right, no one have ever disputed the meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and its inclusion of baptism of blood and baptism of desire until 1952 when what was always implicitly included, and explicitly taught elsewhere by the Church and her theologians, became implicitly excluded and formally condemned (though now it is just a matter of “opinion”) by a hard-core group of Feeneyites who would “re-define” the Church’s doctrines to fit their private interpretations.

columba wrote:Whether or not you have a degree in theology (I think you would make a good Devils Advocate theologian) is irrelevent. Cowboy or anyone else here can understand dogma, Church Councils and catechisms without every last Catholic needing a theology qualification (maybe with the exception of most of that which proceded from Vat II). That we take our Catholic faith seriously enough to engage in discussion should be qualification enough and you come across quite arrogant IMO when you suggest that cowboy isn't worthy of challenging your "superior" arguments.

No problem with the “discussion”; but if you want to sell me on the idea that the Councils, the dogmas, the canons and the Catechisms, and their respective declarations and explications on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Baptism and Justification, “implicitly” exclude the so-called erroneous “non-doctrines” of baptism of blood and baptism of desire; and that the plain English of these same declarations and explications validate your understanding and thus, do NOT require an understanding of some fundamental theological principles and distinctions in order to grasp their “clear meaning”, when it is clear that your “understanding” is novel and directly opposed to the universal moral consensus of the theologians, and to the clear and constant teachings of the Church; well, I’m not buying the sales job.

But, the fact that you “complain openly of [your] disagreement in matters of dogma ... unwillingly bear[s] witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.”

No truer words were ever said.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:God can bring about Sacramental Baptism in Water, that which He desires, for all human beings.

1) God desires that which is perfect for human beings.
2) God desires the salvation of all men.
3) Conclusion: God can bring about the salvation of all men, that which He desires, for all human beings.

Hey, this is easy; universal salvation in one simple syllogism. Your friend Karl Rahner would be proud.

This is a perfectly valid syllogism, and what better way to bring about the salvation of all human beings than to employ the perfect remedy of Sacramental Baptism in Water if only during an individual's infancy? But, alas, we live in a fallen world with human free will; still, for those who are truly worthy of eternal life, your syllogism makes perfect sense! I could not ask for a better proof of "Feeneyism"!

I don't think so, since the "proof" for universal salvation is modeled on your flawed syllogism ... which is the whole point.

Since it does not "prove" universal salvation; neither does your syllogism "prove" that no one can attain the beatific vision without water baptism.

If you are only trying to "prove" that God "can" provide the sacrament to every one of His elect IF He so chooses; then you are wasting everyone's time since that has nothing to do with any of these discussions.

The Church teaches that God is not bound to provide the actual sacrament in order to provide the grace of he sacrament, and I don't need a syllogism to "prove" what is clearly taught by the Church, or to tell me otherwise; and I don't need a syllogism to tell me that God can provide the sacrament If He so chooses.

The Church teaches that she has always held the firm conviction that baptism of blood and baptism of desire supply for the grace of the sacrament when the sacrament is wanting due to some unforeseen circumstance. That God could remove this obstacle IF He chose to is not our concern if it His will not to. His ways are not our ways and until someone can "prove" that our Lord or His Church "defined" that the grace of Justification cannot result in salvation when the sacrament is "impossible" to receive (in other words, that the Church's authentic and ordinary teaching is false), then all of these "syllogisms" that prove nothing are a total waste of time.

Your so-called syllogisms that attempt to disprove this clear and constant teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire are seriously flawed ... and mostly fallacious.

But I hate to dissuade you since you seem to be deriving some pleasure from posting these winners that prove nothing, but look pretty cool.