Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Explanation Please

[DJim]

I don’t think that Gerard’s interpretation is overly rigid; that argument might be better aimed at this statement from Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

To me, it doesn’t seem like there is much room for interpretation there…the statement is simple and forceful…look at the words used: ABSOLUTELY, NECESSARY, EVERY, and SUBJECT (which is defined as “under the authority or control of.”)

This statement has to be as true now as it was then…the truth is immutable…2+2=4 today, as it did 500 years ago, as it will 500 years hence.

Being “subject to the Roman Pontiff” is another way of saying being “incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ.”

How does one become “subject” to the Pope? By the mere fact of being part of the Body of Christ, for Christ the Head appointed the Pope as His Vicar.

Needless to say, Unam Sanctam completely harmonizes with Pope Pius IX and his statement on invincible ignorance.

Pope Boniface would tip his hat to the clear teaching of Pope Pius on this point. Boniface was not addressing whether or how one becomes subject to the Roman Pontiff–he only asserted its necessity.

DJim

 

[ToMo]

But how can I be under the authority control of the Roman pontiff without even knowing who he is? or acknowledging him for what he is?

 

[DJim]

But how can I be under the authority control of the Roman pontiff without even knowing who he is? or acknowledging him for what he is?

The same way that the atheist remains under the authority and control of God Himself.

The atheist does not cease to exist merely because he does not know or seek to know God.

Unam Sanctam does not say it is necessary to acknowledge papal authority–it only teaches it’s necessary to be subject to it.

DJim

 

[ToMo]

The same way that the atheist remains under the authority and control of God Himself.

The atheist does not cease to exist merely because he does not know or seek to know God.

Unam Sanctam does not say it is necessary to acknowledge papal authority–it only teaches it’s necessary to be subject to it.

DJim

I’ve got to admit that the “extra ecclessiam nulla salus” issue is one of the hardest for me to get my head around and fully digest, and fully come to some conclusion (either way) that makes clear sense in my head.

 

[GerardP]

Are you really trying to assert that God can only “justify” and not save someone who does not bear the “mark” of Baptism?

Are you really trying to assert that God can “justify” and “save” someone but can’t supply a simple Baptism that he has declared necessary?

Do you insist that all who are in Heaven bear the “mark” of Baptism?

Only those since the promulgation of the Gospel as Trent states. Adam, Eve, Moses etc were saved under the Old Covenant.

I said "wow, btw, because I thought it was obvious that the two canons are related and illuminate one another–they are not taught in isolation, which is what you seem to suggest.

Then you believe in a contradictory Trent. Trent is defining things. Defining is the drawing of lines that separate things. Councils are not Scriptures that are endlessly interwoven.

Quote:
Not at all. Can you show me where Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are implicitly endorsed by Cantate Domino?

You cannot show me where they are explicitly condemned–that suffices to prove that CD does not condemn them. There is no positive reference made for us to consider. Therefore, they are not condemned by CD.

Sigh…Does Cantate Domino not mention that if one spills his blood in the name of Christ that unless he is in sacramental communion with the Church he is not saved? Does CD not mention that “no matter what his almsgiving” that unless he is in the Church before his death he cannot be saved?

I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine.

Quote:
I do believe that. And also believe that God is not so lazy as to allow it to be “impossible” for someone lead by that grace not to enter the Church.

Just as long as God does it YOUR way…right? He’s got to use water–your way.

It’s His way, not mine. I didn’t make Christ’s words absolute. He did.

Thanks for proving my point–again. Water is necessary for baptism. Baptism, just as ALL Sacraments are, is necessary for salvation.

Are you saying that when Trent says something is necessary that it’s not necessary and when Trent says “all” it means “some”?

or…

Are you now saying that you can receive the other sacraments without baptism?

But this does not translate into “the only way somebody gets to Heaven is through baptism with REAL water.” Trent NEVER says that!

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

C’mon! This is basic arithmetic. Baptism is necessary for salvation. Water is necessary for Baptism. Water is not necessary for Justification. Justification is the translation from the state of sin to that of being pleasing to God. Baptism justifies and provides the indelible mark of Christ that gains entrance into Heaven. Justification by itself does not.

No, the point you have yet to address directly is that Trent says ALL Sacraments are “necessary for salvation.” And that, YES, “Trent qualifies that.” That’s exactly right.

IOW, Trent gives us the interpretation of the phrase “necessary for salvation” as it is used in the Council.

Trent does not qualify the necessity of Baptism in the same way. Trent is clear on what it means when it says that “All” Sacraments are necessary. (ie… unless you follow the rules of sacramental reception, you’re going to Hell.)

Had Trent said that true and natural water was the ordinary manner of baptism when it is readily available but in proximity to death, saliva or wishful thinking would suffice, you might have a case. But it doesn’t. So you don’t.

 

[GerardP]

In the Canon on Baptism, we must apply the same “qualification” TRENT applies when it states just how all Sacraments are necessary for salvation–the phrase is NOT intended to imply that all MUST physically receive ALL sacraments in order to be saved personally.

And Trent says that not all of the sacraments are equal. You can repeat Holy Communion and Penance and Extreme Unction. You can’t repeat Orders, Baptism or Confirmation.

Trent also says that they are necessary unto salvation but something like Orders is not necessary for everyone to recieve.

Trent is saying that there are sacraments for every set of circumstances. It doesn’t say that circumstances override the necessity of the sacraments.

The phrase “necessary for salvation” is BROAD–it refers to the life of the Church, not to the life of the individual, in this context.
Why won’t you admit this?

What does that have to do with the necessity of Baptism for the individual?

You are reading what you want INTO the text of Trent. You’ve latched onto a liberal misreading of what the Council actually said.
You want to apply distinctions that Trent clearly makes to clarify and apply them willy nilly to whatever phrases either require a strong incarnational understanding of the Church and ultimately you use them to weaken Trent and make it a contradictory council.

Necessary means necessary. Period. Justification is one thing, salvation is another.

Baptism of an infant provides justification and salvation if they die before they reach the age of reason and sin.

Baptism of an adult requires that they have the sacrament and the disposition for the sacrament.

If an adult dies without Baptism but made a perfect act of love, they are justified. No one knows and the Church has never declared and the Church can never declare that they are saved or that a miraculous intervention has occurred.

But we do know that Christ instituted a Sacrament that requires water as both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.

 

[DJim]

Are you really trying to assert that God can “justify” and “save” someone but can’t supply a simple Baptism that he has declared necessary?

And around and around we go–if God can do the “simple,” then why do you insist on making it less simple than just God willing it and accepting that Trent doesn’t mean what you think it means?

Only those since the promulgation of the Gospel as Trent states. Adam, Eve, Moses etc were saved under the Old Covenant.

At what moment in time did the “Old Covenant” cease and the “New Covenant” begin?

In any case, you admit that Heaven includes those not marked with Baptism. Ergo, Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

But that statement DIRECTLY contradicts the clear teaching of Trent. Trent says:

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

You are NOW telling me baptism is not necessary for salvation. That there are those in heaven who are UNbaptized. The absolute and literal meaning of Canon V is that (according to you) it teaches that–without qualification of any kind–baptism is absolutely necessary.

Make up your mind.

Then you believe in a contradictory Trent. Trent is defining things. Defining is the drawing of lines that separate things. Councils are not Scriptures that are endlessly interwoven.

If I take this principle at face value, then you must take Canon V at absolute face value–NO exceptions. Yet, you insist on an exception–the “Old Covenant” faithful are not baptized yet are saved–despite the fact that Trent doesn’t admit this exception in Canon V, which is crystal clear according to you.

Sigh…Does Cantate Domino not mention that if one spills his blood in the name of Christ that unless he is in sacramental communion with the Church he is not saved? Does CD not mention that “no matter what his almsgiving” that unless he is in the Church before his death he cannot be saved?

It teaches “no salvation outside the Church”–which we all accept. It does NOT state anything about the necessity of Sacramental Baptism.

Are you saying that when Trent says something is necessary that it’s not necessary and when Trent says “all” it means “some”?

YES. I am. And so are you. YOU say Trent admits of an exception regarding baptism and salvation–pre-Christian faithful–but Canon V does NOT admit the exception. You add something to the canon that makes it less absolute. You have set the precedent, not me.

Once you admit of any exception to the Canon you legitimize the possibility that other exceptions may exists along with the one you admit. Simple logic.

If you want “absolute” dogma, there it is–go ahead and damn everyone–and I mean everyone–who has not received water baptism.

Are you now saying that you can receive the other sacraments without baptism?

I’m saying that Trent defines “necessary unto salvation” in a manner that is NOT matching your strict absolutist error.

C’mon! This is basic arithmetic. Baptism is necessary for salvation. Water is necessary for Baptism. Water is not necessary for Justification. Justification is the translation from the state of sin to that of being pleasing to God. Baptism justifies and provides the indelible mark of Christ that gains entrance into Heaven. Justification by itself does not.

No it’s not basic arithmetic–your own exception makes this clear. If there are UNbaptized in Heaven, then Baptism is NOT absolutely necessary for salvation.

Trent does not qualify the necessity of Baptism in the same way.

Show me where Trent says unequivocally that this is so.

Trent is clear on what it means when it says that “All” Sacraments are necessary. (ie… unless you follow the rules of sacramental reception, you’re going to Hell.)

No–the teaching is that the Sacramental life of the Church is necessary for salvation of the Church. IOW, you can’t have a “salvific” Church without ALL the Sacraments. But this doesn’t mean all Sacraments are received by ALL, including Baptism.

DJim

 

[GerardP]

And around and around we go–if God can do the “simple,” then why do you insist on making it less simple than just God willing it and accepting that Trent doesn’t mean what you think it means?

C’mon. Be real. This is God we are talking about. Do you think being consistent is difficult for Him? He required no effort to create everything. It’s no greater effort for Him to supply what he said is required.

At what moment in time did the “Old Covenant” cease and the “New Covenant” begin?

As it pertains to Baptism? When Christ gave the commission to the Apostles.

In any case, you admit that Heaven includes those not marked with Baptism. Ergo, Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

Look at the tense. Baptism WAS not necessary. Since Christ’s command, it is.

more later…

 

[DJim]

At what moment in time did the “Old Covenant” cease and the “New Covenant” begin?

As it pertains to Baptism? When Christ gave the commission to the Apostles.

Hmmm, so at that moment the “switch” from no Baptism needed to absolute necessity flipped?

Look at the tense. Baptism WAS not necessary. Since Christ’s command, it is.

That’s not the point. The point is that if you interpret Trent unconditionally and absolutely, you must also admit that Trent contradicts the concept that ANYBODY in Heaven is unbaptized.

DJim

 

[GerardP]

Hmmm, so at that moment the “switch” from no Baptism needed to absolute necessity flipped?

Yes. That’s the way it is with God. One minute he’s in the tomb, the next minute he’s not. The Old Covenant was harder to get to Heaven with than the New because anyone righteous was so, in anticipation of the Messiah.

Judaism WAS the one true religion. Not anymore. The “switch” has been flipped and now “Catholicism” is now the one true religion because of Christ’s victory.

That’s not the point. The point is that if you interpret Trent unconditionally and absolutely, you must also admit that Trent contradicts the concept that ANYBODY in Heaven is unbaptized.

You’re attributing a concept that I haven’t espoused. I haven’t said anything about the occupants of Heaven. I’m saying as Trent does that since the promulgation of the gospel, Christ made it absolutely necessary to be baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order to have access to salvation.

 

[DJim]

Yes. That’s the way it is with God. One minute he’s in the tomb, the next minute he’s not. The Old Covenant was harder to get to Heaven with than the New because anyone righteous was so, in anticipation of the Messiah.

Judaism WAS the one true religion. Not anymore. The “switch” has been flipped and now “Catholicism” is now the one true religion because of Christ’s victory.

Are you REALLY saying–I mean REALLY saying–that the same Jesus who commanded His Apostles to Baptize all nations on the day of His Ascension into Heaven, “flipped the switch” so to speak so that, from that moment forward, anyone who died without water Baptism would no longer be saved?

This is the same Jesus who commanded His disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit, which didn’t happen until ten days later–right?

So all the people who died in the ten days between Jesus Ascension and Pentecost were only “saved” if God somehow gave them miraculous water baptism–all this BEFORE the Apostles were even empowered by the Holy Spirit to go out and preach to all nations?

And what about the world outside Jerusalem at this time–before the persecution that followed Stephen’s martyrdom. Those in pagan Corinth and Ephesus who had NO opportunity yet to hear the Gospel–if they died, they could only be saved by miraculous water Baptism even BEFORE they were aware that Jesus had commanded Baptism?

You’re attributing a concept that I haven’t espoused. I haven’t said anything about the occupants of Heaven. I’m saying as Trent does that since the promulgation of the gospel, Christ made it absolutely necessary to be baptized in water and the Holy Ghost in order to have access to salvation.

What you are doing is dangerously misinterpreting Trent to meet your own personal theology while the doctrine of the Church continues to develop appropriately and properly beyond your own thinking.

If Pope Pius IX can universally teach that the invincibly ignorant are indeed saved without water baptism, I’ll put my trust in him and his interpretation of Trent over yours.

After all, we both agree that the Holy Spirit guides and protects him, even when he is NOT teaching infallibly.

Right?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Gerard P–

You didn’t actually respond to my point, I realize now:

I said: That’s not the point. The point is that if you interpret Trent unconditionally and absolutely, you must also admit that Trent contradicts the concept that ANYBODY in Heaven is unbaptized.

So let me ask you:

Since Trent makes no qualification whatsoever in Canon V regarding the absolute statement that baptism is necessary for salvation, how can you possibly ADD a qualification to Trent by saying that anyone unbaptized can be saved?

Trent does NOT say in Canon V that there are any exceptions to the infallible teaching it proclaims. And you’ve said that we have to accept the canon as clear, absolute, and literal.

So, does it or does it not contradict the infallible Canon V to say that there are some people who are saved without baptism?

DJim

 

[GerardP]

Are you REALLY saying–I mean REALLY saying–that the same Jesus who commanded His Apostles to Baptize all nations on the day of His Ascension into Heaven, “flipped the switch” so to speak so that, from that moment forward, anyone who died without water Baptism would no longer be saved?

Yes. You seem to think from what I’m reading that it was easier to be saved under the Old Covenant without Baptism than under the New Covenant with Baptism.

This is the same Jesus who commanded His disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit, which didn’t happen until ten days later–right?

Yes.

So all the people who died in the ten days between Jesus Ascension and Pentecost were only “saved” if God somehow gave them miraculous water baptism–all this BEFORE the Apostles were even empowered by the Holy Spirit to go out and preach to all nations?

How do you know anyone died? Isn’t that pure speculation on your part? Wouldn’t God provide for anyone after He establishes a requirement?

How is it that Peter would wind up baptizing thousands of people in a day?

Why do you suddenly get cynical about God’s competance and power when an explanation is presented that requires faith?

God is Providence. Providence provides. Was Christ lying when he said, “Seek and ye shall find. Ask and it shall be given.”?

And what about the world outside Jerusalem at this time–before the persecution that followed Stephen’s martyrdom. Those in pagan Corinth and Ephesus who had NO opportunity yet to hear the Gospel–if they died, they could only be saved by miraculous water Baptism even BEFORE they were aware that Jesus had commanded Baptism?

If God had to send Angels to Lot, why do you think he suddenly stops doing extraordinary things for those who are righteous?

 

[GerardP]

What you are doing is dangerously misinterpreting Trent to meet your own personal theology while the doctrine of the Church continues to develop appropriately and properly beyond your own thinking.

You have a very wrong understanding of Development of Doctrine.
Development of Doctrine is St. Augustine saying that the Eucharist is His flesh understood by some “latent mystery” that latent mystery develops into the doctrine of transubstantiation. That is development of doctrine. As Chesterton said, it means a dog becoming more doggy not being crossed with a fish. (paraphrase)

Any understanding that denies that the Eucharist is His flesh is not a development.

Development of Doctrine involving membership in the Church involves sacramental unity distinguished from organizational unity is not what we are seeing today. This is an error that has been festering for a long long time in the Church. Speculation has lead to the idea that an explicit desire was required. Then came along the “implicit” desire and the “anonymous Christian” garbage of Karl Rahner.

Dogma is being reduced to a meaningless formula as Pius XII warned. (Even though he couldn’t figure out that he was imbibing in it to a certain degree)

This is all leading towards the idea of Universal Salvation and as St. Pius X warned, " And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition."–Our Apostolic Mandate 1910

If Pope Pius IX can universally teach that the invincibly ignorant are indeed saved without water baptism, I’ll put my trust in him and his interpretation of Trent over yours.

You mean your interpretation of him, don’t you. I think after we sift through all of the translations and mistranslations of the text we’ll find that you are buying into a liberal spin on Pius IX.

After all, we both agree that the Holy Spirit guides and protects him, even when he is NOT teaching infallibly.

Right?

I’m not sure. What are you referring to? The Pope has no direct line to the Holy Ghost and does not surrender his free will when he becomes Pope. He certainly can resist the Holy Ghost like we all can.

I certainly don’t think the Holy Ghost was guiding Pope Stephen when he, acting as Supreme Pontiff dug up the corpse of his predecessor Pope Formosus, put the corpse on trial, declared everything he ever did invalid, had his body desecrated and thrown into a river.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard P–

You didn’t actually respond to my point,

I’m sorry, I’m having trouble understanding you.

I realize now:

I said: That’s not the point. The point is that if you interpret Trent unconditionally and absolutely, you must also admit that Trent contradicts the concept that ANYBODY in Heaven is unbaptized.

I don’t follow you on this. Trent does not contradict that.

So let me ask you:
Since Trent makes no qualification whatsoever in Canon V regarding the absolute statement that baptism is necessary for salvation, how can you possibly ADD a qualification to Trent by saying that anyone unbaptized can be saved?

I don’t add the qualification, Trent does when it says, “Since the promulgation of the Gospel…”

Trent does NOT say in Canon V that there are any exceptions to the infallible teaching it proclaims. And you’ve said that we have to accept the canon as clear, absolute, and literal.

I think you mean Canon IV.

So, does it or does it not contradict the infallible Canon V to say that there are some people who are saved without baptism?

Let’s get back to tense. I’m saying that prior to the promulgation of the Gospel and in anticipation of Christ there were those who were saved and brought to Heaven when Christ freed them from the Limbo of the Fathers.

No one goes to the Limbo of the Fathers anymore. That is closed.

Conversely, no one gets to Heaven anymore without Baptism because there is no need for the Limbus Patrum and Baptism is the gateway sacrament.

So Trent is corrrect, no one is saved who is not baptized. Anyone who says they are not necessary for salvation is anathema.

 

[DJim]

In order to maintain your erroneous view of Trent, you invalidate the clear teaching of numerous Popes and a Council or two, as well as compel God either to perform countless physical miracles or relegate countless souls to damnation.

Why can’t you just admit the truth and say, with the Church, that we don’t know HOW God does it–whether through countless physical miracles or through simply willing it–but God does save the invincibly ignorant and God can save unbaptized infants if He so chooses???

Why must you make yourself a Magisterium of One? Why can’t you just humbly submit to the living Magisterium of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

DJim

 

[GerardP]

If Pope Pius IX can universally teach that the invincibly ignorant are indeed saved without water baptism, I’ll put my trust in him and his interpretation of Trent over yours.

If you can, take a look at this link and see if you have a problem with the argument made.

romancatholicism.org/reply-to-a-liberal-part1.htm

 

[GerardP]

In order to maintain your erroneous view of Trent, you invalidate the clear teaching of numerous Popes and a Council or two, as well as compel God either to perform countless physical miracles or relegate countless souls to damnation.

Not true. First, my position isn’t erroneous. Trent only holds together logically when understood as I’ve been persuaded it does by the “Feeney” position.

Second, I don’t invalidate clear teaching on any Pope’s part. I just understand the papacy according to what it is and not a romanticized version of it very popular nowadays.

Third, I don’t “compel” God to do anything. Those are reasonable and orthodox options I’ve organized so as to make His mercy consistent with his word and prevent me from either swaying too far to the left by thinking “God is too good to mean what he says.” and too far to the right by saying, “Everyone is damned who I don’t have concrete proof that they are in the Church.”

Why can’t you just admit the truth and say, with the Church, that we don’t know HOW God does it–whether through countless physical miracles or through simply willing it–but God does save the invincibly ignorant and God can save unbaptized infants if He so chooses???

The “Church” doesn’t say that. Churchmen do. This is all hypothetical blathering about people that know one even knows whether they exist. Ultimately, it is a liberal limitation on God’s promises.

Who are the invincibly ignorant? What does that mean? The mentally disabled? God’s threshold for that is unknown to the Church. But God has revealed certain truths. One of them is the necessity of Baptism. By virtue of that, God won’t save the unbaptized. He will however have baptism for those He chooses deserve it. He may do it a lot, hardly at all or never, but “may” and “might” about God are just speculations even from Popes.

Why must you make yourself a Magisterium of One? Why can’t you just humbly submit to the living Magisterium of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

This is going to spill over into a conversation about exactly what the Magisterium is.

The Pope is not the Magisterium.

The Pope can only invoke the Magisterium.

The Pope is bound by the Magisterium.

The Pope can teach without invoking the Magisterium.

The Magisterium cannot change truth.

Which is why I’ve said from early in this thread that ultimately this will have to be clarified by the Magisterium through an extraordinary definition through some Pope.

 

[DJim]

I don’t follow you on this. Trent does not contradict that.

I don’t add the qualification, Trent does when it says, “Since the promulgation of the Gospel…”

I think you mean Canon IV.

No, I’m speaking of Canon V on Baptism, which says: “If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”

You insist this canon is literal and absolute. If it were literal and absolute, though, you could not say that it admits that the unbaptized can be or ever have been saved. You have stated that these canons are to be understood on their own terms, and that references to “desire” seen in the section on justification have no relationship to this section’s teaching.

Therefore, I am pointing out that, based on the wording of the Canon ALONE, you cannot admit that anyone has been saved without Baptism. The Canon admits of NO exceptions, past, present, or future.

Let’s get back to tense. I’m saying that prior to the promulgation of the Gospel and in anticipation of Christ there were those who were saved and brought to Heaven when Christ freed them from the Limbo of the Fathers.

I know you are saying this. But Canon V of Trent, taken literally and absolutely, contradicts this statement. It says clearly that Baptism is not optional and is necessary for salvation. It does NOT say that it is NOT necessary for salvation for those who came before Christ.

Conversely, no one gets to Heaven anymore without Baptism because there is no need for the Limbus Patrum and Baptism is the gateway sacrament.

But that’s not what Canon V absolutely asserts. You are making the Canon contingent upon some other understanding, which is exactly what you said I couldn’t do in reference to the invincibly ignorant.

You can’t have it both ways. Either KEEP Canon V absolute or admit that it is contingent upon other teachings for proper interpretation.

So Trent is corrrect, no one is saved who is not baptized. Anyone who says they are not necessary for salvation is anathema.

Then you are anathematized, since you say Baptis IS not necessary for salvation for the pre-Christian righteous.

It’s simple–just answer this question directly:

So, does it or does it not contradict the infallible Canon V to say that there are some people who are saved without baptism?

This is a question answered with either a Yes or a No.

Please provide the answer.

Thanks

DJim

 

[GerardP]

No, I’m speaking of Canon V on Baptism, which says: “If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”

You insist this canon is literal and absolute. If it were literal and absolute, though, you could not say that it admits that the unbaptized can be or ever have been saved.

Yes I can. You are the one imputing retroactivity into the Canon where there is none.

It says “Is” not “was” or “have been.”

You have stated that these canons are to be understood on their own terms, and that references to “desire” seen in the section on justification have no relationship to this section’s teaching.

Yes. Just as they Orders by Desire and Marriage by Desire don’t apply.

Therefore, I am pointing out that, based on the wording of the Canon ALONE, you cannot admit that anyone has been saved without Baptism. The Canon admits of NO exceptions, past, present, or future.

No. The Canon says “is” it means current.

I know you are saying this. But Canon V of Trent, taken literally and absolutely, contradicts this statement. It says clearly that Baptism is not optional and is necessary for salvation.

It says “is.” I hope we don’t go “Clinton” on the meaning of “is.”

It does NOT say that it is NOT necessary for salvation for those who came before Christ.

Taken literally it doesn’t make any statement at all on those who came before the Incarnation.

But that’s not what Canon V absolutely asserts. You are making the Canon contingent upon some other understanding, which is exactly what you said I couldn’t do in reference to the invincibly ignorant.

You can’t have it both ways. Either KEEP Canon V absolute or admit that it is contingent upon other teachings for proper interpretation.

Now you’re muddying it up with subjective terms. What is “proper interpretation.”

The liberal theologian could say:

“2+2=4 is contingent on the first two and the second two being the same as 4 remaining the sum of 2 and 2.”

But that could be reinterpreted to “The first two on Mondays is what three was on Saturday. The second two on Mondays is what one was on Thursday.”

And then the liberal theologian comes up and says, "What do you mean by “Monday”?

And voila’! We are at Pyrrhonism.

Then you are anathematized, since you say Baptis IS not necessary for salvation for the pre-Christian righteous.

The law of non-contradiction applies. You can’t change tense between your subject and your object and remain consistent.

It’s simple–just answer this question directly:

So, does it or does it not contradict the infallible Canon V to say that there are some people who are saved without baptism?

This is a question answered with either a Yes or a No. Please provide the answer.

Yes it does. Just as it is wrong to say there are those who are saved in the Limbo of the Fathers.