(reducing your quotes to shorten character space per post)
Yes, I jumped the… Is this the trajectory or conclusion your post was leading us to?
That’s not exactly what the sedevacantists proclaim but that is another subject. I am simply presenting the facts and quotes of the
Extraordinary Magisterium, where the argument comes from is of no consequence to the debate dealing with the facts. And no, the sedevacantist position is not the conclusion.
Dogmatic teaching must be understood…
Agreed, and the authority has spoken clearly and and unambiguously that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation without exception. If you need the interpretations of Trent read in this light, I can quote you the Catechism of the Council of Trent if you’d like? It is more emphatic over this. But remember, Catechisms, theologians, even the
Ordinary Magisterium, when it is speaking as the
Authentic Magisterium, can error when it is not speaking in line with dogma and tradition.
You are spinning lengthly …
I simply present the facts my friend.
In your personal interpretation, …
That is what I am implying to you? Forgive me if it seems that way because that is not the case. As I said before, the Church can error, even when teaching non-dogmatically, when it is simply speaking as the
Authentic Magisterium. Dose this mean the gates of Hell prevailed? Absolutely not, this sort of conclusion is simply poor ecclesiology and a defective understanding how the Magisterium works. And actually, this correct understanding of the Magisterium can work against the sedevacantist position and even the case SSPX presents since one can still give
prudential assent to the present hierarchy and yet believe and preach contrary to what is in question without facing canonical consequences. Even Cardinal Brandmuller said as much that the things in question are non-binding doctrinal content that are up for theological debate and possible change.
Also it should be noted that Vatican II only bound the faithful to believe in certain things of which it said was binding. You will read this in
Nota Praevia of
Lumen Gentium.
Indeed, none of these three canonized saints…
You misread the reasons why I quoted the saints in question. I demonstrated that the two patristic Fathers St. Aquinas used to foundation his argument on desire was inconsistent because the same two made contrary statements else where. Not to use them as the final authority for dogma. I quote infallible statements of Popes and Councils for that, which have been avoided sadly.
It should be noted though that a number of saints and Popes have said repeatedly that we ought to make sure that our faith today is identical to the faith of our Fathers, the Early Church Fathers, for it were not than we would be of different religions. So quoting from patristic sources is quoting from authority in the Church’s eyes, you ought to read how many times Vat II quoted these such sources to defend and expound on certain subjects. And I will quote patristic sources to defend mine, how I am reading the infallible Canons of Trent and the other infallible sources. This will demonstrate to you that my position is at least free of heresy, least you say these saints of the Early Church believed in heresy, and a simple matter of theological debate:
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1012.
St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…
“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
Saint John Chrysostom, “The Consolation of Death,” Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, vol. IV, p. 363.
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
Have a good day.