no Salvation outside the Church

[McMaster]

"this man will not be abandoned by God" merely because the sacraments are not available to him in the normal course of events

Yes and that does not change the fact that he is bound by the law of baptism whether or not he realizes it. [...] Affirm, along with St. Thomas and numerous other authorities, that, "Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men." Summa Theo. III, Q. 68. Art. 1c.

Asked and answered. As to baptism in the extended sense including baptism of blood and baptism of desire (including, if necessary, implicit and vicarious desire), I affirm. As to the sacrament of baptism, I deny, for baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not sacraments and yet are sufficient for salvation [S.T. III, Q. 66, Art. 11, reply obj. 2].

Now it's your turn to affirm or deny: "God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)." (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 241). If He gives them all sufficient grace, and if this includes at least the possibility of some kind of baptism of desire in every case, fine; no problem. Only the supposition that some are bound by a divine law that it is absolutely impossible for them to fulfill would conflict with the principle that God does not require anyone to do the impossible.

If a person is bound by the law of baptism "whether or not he realizes it," either he can realize it or he can't. If each person who is bound by the law either (1) can realize it and obey the law, or (2) can be baptized without realizing it (as at least some infants certainly can), there is no conflict with the same principle, nor with the universal gift of sufficient grace to innocent unbelievers. Is this what you hold? If not, how do you (or do you?) claim that those who (1) cannot realize that they should obey the law of baptism, and (2) cannot be baptized without realizing it, are not required to do the impossible by God in order to be saved?

The fact remains that a pre-rational person who dies without receiving baptism is excluded from heaven. This fact alone proves the necessity of baptism for it is intrinsically impossible for such a person to receive the promulgation of the law, as you put it.

It has not been divinely revealed, or authoritatively taught [EDIT: by the "Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium" (1983 CIC Canon 752)], that infants who die without receiving the sacrament of baptism are [EDIT: necessarily] excluded from heaven. Whether such infants may be freed from original sin through a "vicarious baptism of desire," in which others' desire that they be baptized would take the place of their own just as it does when infants receive the sacrament of baptism, is an open question [see Ott, pp. 114, 241-242].

Will you ever cease being obtuse and intellectually dishonest?

Will the Pope ever stop beating his wife? Take a little lesson on Anger & Its Remedies and call me in the morning or whenever you're ready to answer the questions posed above, whichever comes last.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[fantasy_forever]

there is no salvation outside the Church. That is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

[McMaster]

there is no salvation outside the Church. That is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

True. All the discussions about baptism of desire (explicit, implicit, vicarious, or whatever), and related matters, are basically about the possibility or impossibility of different ways of entering the Church.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[JoeVoxxPop]

if infants are most likely in heaven than abortion can be benificial and salvivic in some @#$" target=_blank>cases???

The horror of abortion is its total destruction of body and condeming of the soul....remove this horror with sophistrys and sweet imaginings about some or all infants going to heaven without baptism ....and the prolife position can be nearly moot....also the Gospels have clear instances of people leading others to destruction...the victims were led away by others.....

[McMaster]

if [unbaptized] infants are most likely in heaven th[e]n abortion can be ben[e]ficial and salvi[f]ic in some cases???

If martyrs are certainly in heaven, then murder can be beneficial and salvific in some cases? No, the killing of innocent human beings is intrinsically evil in any event, but God can bring good even out of evil; that's the only reason why He allows any evil at all to exist [St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. I, Q. 2, Art. 3, reply obj. 1].

The horror of abortion is its total destruction of body and condem[n]ing of the soul....remove this horror with sophistr[ie]s and sweet imaginings about some or all infants going to heaven without baptism ....and the prolife position can be nearly moot....

We've been over this before. The worst that can possibly happen to the souls of infants who die without baptism is that they go to the limbo of infants, commonly thought to be a state of perfect natural happiness, but without the vision of God. This is not nearly bad enough to deter anyone wishing to procure an abortion from doing the deed. The Church cannot fabricate falsehoods about unbaptized infants being tortured in hell, on the supposition that this may deter some people from procuring abortions. The pro-life position is that abortion is wrong for the same reason as the murder of someone who has already been born is wrong, regardless of what may happen to the person's soul after death.

also the Gospels have clear instances of people leading others to destruction...the victims were led away by others.....

True, and important and relevant too. Parents are entrusted with the eternal welfare of their children, especially when the children cannot yet make their own decisions; this is why, since the promulgation of the Gospel, they are required to have their babies baptized without undue delay. Because of this, it is not certain, nor even likely, that infants' souls will be saved if their parents neglect to have them baptized and they die--much less if the parents deprive them of baptism by killing them before they can be baptized. (In that event, they might imaginably undergo a sort of "baptism of blood" like that of the Holy Innocents, but that's far from certain too.) On the other hand, if parents do all they can to have their babies baptized but the babies die before baptism anyway, it does not appear that the parents need to despair of their babies' salvation. This is because it is possible, though not divinely revealed as certain, that the parents' desire for the babies' baptism will be accepted in substitution for the desire the babies themselves could not have--just as the parents' actual consent to the baptism (had it taken place) would have been accepted in substitution for the consent the babies themselves could not give.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[JoeVoxxPop]

Is the presence of the stain of original sin on the soul enough to convict a soul to eternal hell? Yes or no?

[McMaster]

Is the presence of the stain of original sin on the soul enough to convict [i.e., sentence?] a soul to eternal hell? Yes or no?

As to the loss of the vision of God, yes. As to the torments of hell, no. "The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell"--Pope Innocent III [Denzinger 410]. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that it would be unjust to impose any [EDIT: eternal] punishment for original sin other than the loss of the vision of God, and therefore those who die with original sin alone do not undergo any personal suffering [EDIT: after death] [S.T. Suppl., Appendix 1, Q. 1, Art. 1]:

The loss of this vision [of God] is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment in so far as he suffers in his person. Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain. On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[Tiny]

there is no salvation outside the Church. That is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

True. All the discussions about baptism of desire (explicit, implicit, vicarious, or whatever), and related matters, are basically about the possibility or impossibility of different ways of entering the Church.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

Ok, my question is how do you treat phrases such as this one from Unam Sanctam

it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

Is it essentially the same arguement here?

[McMaster]

All the discussions about baptism of desire (explicit, implicit, vicarious, or whatever), and related matters, are basically about the possibility or impossibility of different ways of entering the Church.

Ok, my question is how do you treat phrases such as this one from Unam Sanctam

it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff

Is it essentially the same arg[um]ent here?

If you mean "because God gives sufficient grace for salvation to all innocent unbelievers, and does not require anyone to do the impossible, those who do not know of the requirement of submission to the Roman Pontiff may be saved by a sort of implicit or vicarious submission to him, comparable to implicit or vicarious desire for baptism"--then yes, it's essentially the same argument. Those who accept the argument as to baptism would logically also accept it as to submission to the Roman Pontiff; those who reject the one would logically also reject the other.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[Tiny]

If you mean "because God gives sufficient grace for salvation to all innocent unbelievers, and does not require anyone to do the impossible, those who do not know of the requirement of submission to the Roman Pontiff may be saved by a sort of implicit or vicarious submission to him, comparable to implicit or vicarious desire for baptism"--then yes, it's essentially the same argument. Those who accept the argument as to baptism would logically also accept it as to submission to the Roman Pontiff; those who reject the one would logically also reject the other.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

Thanks McMaster!