Does the Church teach that judaism is true?

[Isaac_Jogues]

Malleus: Once again untrue. The Council of Trent Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” Note “DESIRE FOR IT”

This only means that the regenerating effects of Baptism cannot take place unless a person desires it. It does not say that you can have one or the other, just baptism or just a desire for it.
If this were true then it does not coincide with the rest of the Council’s Teachings on Baptism. You must have the Laver (water) and the Desire to do it. One cannot do anything willingly without the desire to do it.
Your INTERPRETATION is unsupported.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John.

What does the Catechism of the Council of Trent say?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

I agree that martyrdom does take the place of confession but it cannot remove original which is necessary to have removed if we are to be saved.
And your citing of Trent only proves that one needs both water and the desire to be baptized to be saved. If you would cite the whole quote it says: "cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it”, which means exactly as I have said. One needs both, not one or the other.

Malleus: And as previously Stated in Session 6 they defined what they meant by Baptism Didnt they? Obviously once one desires Salvation and through Grace approaches GOD he is SAVED. Want an example from Scripture?

Matthew : 9:2. And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee. 9:3. And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.9:4. And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?9:5. Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?9:6. But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.9:7. And he arose, and went into his house.9:8. And the multitude seeing it, feared, and glorified God that gave such power to men. Was he saved or did he still have to be baptised? Did Jesus forgive ALL his Sins both Actual and Original? Certainly if Original Sin wasnt forgven - then he wasnt saved according to your criteria.

Where does it say that the man automatically went to heaven? If he dies before the Law of Baptism became obligatory then he didn’t need Baptism.

And in 1 JOHN it likewise states : 5:7. And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.5:8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

I will let Pope Leo the Great explain to you what this means. Hint: it doesn’t mean that Baptism of blood and desire are equal to Water Baptism.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
We can not be Justified, nor does Christ’s redeeming Blood have any effect on us without the Water of Baptism. They are indivisible.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…And your citing of Trent only proves that one needs both water and the desire to be baptized to be saved. If you would cite the whole quote it says: "cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it”, which means exactly as I have said. One needs both, not one or the other…

Perhaps I’m missing something here , but to me, this interpretation would imply that the largest percentage of Catholic Baptisms are invalid…because they are infant Baptisms and as the quote from Fr. McNamara clarifies, desire is not present in the infant being baptized :

… by Fr. Robert McNamara at this link irondequoitcatholic.org/index.php/Main/TheHolyInnocents?action=browse

… These little victims were not old enough to receive baptism by desire… If Jesus demanded that all men - including infants - be baptized by water or at least by blood or by desire, we must heed that rule, and be most careful to have our children baptized as quickly as possible. That is vital…

I must take exception then, because the above-quoted interpretation of Isaac Jogues (great choice of username BTW) further implies that my own Baptism is invalid and as such there has been no sacramental effect each time I’ve received our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion. I don’t see how I could agree with that…

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Perhaps I’m missing something here , but to me, this interpretation would imply that the largest percentage of Catholic Baptisms are invalid…because they are infant Baptisms and as the quote from Fr. McNamara clarifies, desire is not present in the infant being baptized :

I must take exception then, because the above-quoted interpretation of Isaac Jogues (great choice of username BTW) further implies that my own Baptism is invalid and as such there has been no sacramental effect each time I’ve received our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion. I don’t see how I could agree with that…

Desire is not needed by the infant. That is correct. In this section of (Sess. 6, Ch. 4) of Trent, it is talking about “the Justification of a sinner and it’s mode in the state of grace.”
Since infants are incapable of actual sin, this chapter must be talking about an adult. Therefore, this makes perfect sense, that the laver of regeneration and a desire for it, are necessary in anyone who is above the age of reason. This also coincides perfectly with everything that Trent has to say on the subject of Baptism.
Here is what the Church teaches about infants and the necessity of Baptism.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”-Condemned

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”
There is no hope for infants to be saved other than through Baptism. The dominion of the Devil is original sin and it has been a Dogma of the Church since the beginning, that only Sacramental Baptism can remove original sin.