Perfect Contrition

[TrueLight]

Warrior,

Does the church explicitly say that a Catholic Martyr is not automatically saved, or are you bemoaning the lack of specific reference to that? If your problem is that martyrdom is defined for non-Catholics, but not Catholics, maybe it is because it is assumed that if you make the ultimate sacrifice for Christ, you will be saved?

I found the following comment in a paper by Bro Peter Dimond. Now, it is his opinion but he has some references you can check out.

It is also important to point out that some of the fathers use the term “baptism of
blood” to describe the Catholic martyrdom of one already baptized, not as a possible
replacement for water baptism. This is the only legitimate use of the term.

St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4th Century AD:
“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit
comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and
marvelous cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in
water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.”162

St. John is here describing the martyrdom of a priest St. Lucian, a person already
baptized. He is not saying that martyrdom replaces baptism. St. John Damascene
describes it the same way:

St. John Damascene:
“These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers ‐‐‐ thus
they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep… spotless and undefiled. Whence some
of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by
blood and martyrdom.”163

Anywayl the document is an interesting document because the writer argues that there is no such thing as baptism of blood for non-Catholics.

You can read more here.

I just thought I’d throw some confusion into the mix.

 

[Warrior1979]

Warrior,

Does the church explicitly say that a Catholic Martyr is not automatically saved, or are you bemoaning the lack of specific reference to that? If your problem is that martyrdom is defined for non-Catholics, but not Catholics, maybe it is because it is assumed that if you make the ultimate sacrifice for Christ, you will be saved?

If one makes the ultimate sacrifice for Christ, they are saved, according to Christ. I just don’t get why the mechanism between Catholics and non-Catholics is different, since Christ makes no distinction. The Church confuses the matter by defining a mechanism for one which can’t possibly be the mechanism for the other.

I found the following comment in a paper by Bro Peter Dimond. Now, it is his opinion but he has some references you can check out.

I doubt the Church would consider that a source of anything. I only read a few pages, and some of his opinions seem contrary to dogma.

 

[thistle]

I have no problem with it, and my position is the same as the Church’s in this particular matter. You insist that mortal sins are forgiven before death, which is contrary to what the Church teaches.

What is the relevance of this? It’s usually brought up once one can no longer support their view.

Once again, false. The Catechism appears teaches that non-Catholics are baptized by their death, indicating that death must occur before their sins are forgiven, not after. Do you disagree with the Church on the matter? And why?

Are you really Catholic?

The Church teaching (quoted below) is clear. If you die in a state of mortal sin then you go to Hell. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand therefore that if you are saved you have not died in a state of mortal sin and your sins have been forgiven before death.

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

 

[Warrior1979]

The Church teaching (quoted below) is clear. If you die in a state of mortal sin then you go to Hell. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand therefore that if you are saved you have not died in a state of mortal sin and your sins have been forgiven before death.

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

For your review, here is some more clarity.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Note the extremely careful wording of the above. It does not say there is no other means other than Baptism; it states The Church does not know of any other means. This distinction is obviously understood by the Church, since otherwise everyone not baptized would go to Hell…certainly not a position of the Church. Furthermore, it would mean God’s promise to the Jews would be broken. And also it leaves judgment where it belongs…in Christ.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

The above unequivocally states the death is what cause Baptism of Blood. Death first, then Baptism. This is either in contradiction to CCC 1035, or is an exception to CCC 1035. Using Church logic, it can’t be the former, so it would have to be an exception. Repeating the same thing over and over isn’t going to change it.

 

[thistle]

For your review, here is some more clarity.

Note the extremely careful wording of the above. It does not say there is no other means other than Baptism; it states The Church does not know of any other means. This distinction is obviously understood by the Church, since otherwise everyone not baptized would go to Hell…certainly not a position of the Church. Furthermore, it would mean God’s promise to the Jews would be broken. And also it leaves judgment where it belongs…in Christ.

The above unequivocally states the death is what cause Baptism of Blood. Death first, then Baptism. This is either in contradiction to CCC 1035, or is an exception to CCC 1035. Using Church logic, it can’t be the former, so it would have to be an exception. Repeating the same thing over and over isn’t going to change it.

To be fair to you I spoke to two priests (I know them) at different Churches for their opinion. Both of them said the teaching that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell has no exceptions.

When I pointed out the teaching on Baptism of Blood again they were of the same view which is that if the martyr was previously in a state of sin, his sins would have been forgiven because he had repented or else he would not have died for his faith in Jesus. So he would not have had his sins forgiven after his death. His sins would have been forgiven prior to death.

 

[Warrior1979]

When I pointed out the teaching on Baptism of Blood again they were of the same view which is that if the martyr was previously in a state of sin, his sins would have been forgiven because he had repented or else he would not have died for his faith in Jesus. So he would not have had his sins forgiven after his death.

Naturally, I disagree. I don’t agree that repentance must precede martyrdom. Christ didn’t say it, and I haven’t seen anything authoritative by the Church that states it either.

His sins would have been forgiven prior to death.

This is clearly contrary to the Catechism. It states “Baptized by their death,” not prior to death. Stating sins are forgiven prior to death is like stating original sin is washed away prior to an infant’s Baptism. I’m also keep it simple here…only the non-baptized are addressed, not the baptized, which cause further complication.

Also, I never brought up another example in the Catechism (pertaining to suicide):

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

This clearly implies that God may not have revealed everything to man. It also implies that a mechanism might exist for forgiveness when one dies in a state of mortal sin. The reason I believe it implies this is because if the person committing suicide somehow wasn’t in a state of mortal sin, this passage makes no sense and wouldn’t be included.

 

[redrosetea]

Naturally, I disagree. I don’t agree that repentance must precede martyrdom. Christ didn’t say it, and I haven’t seen anything authoritative by the Church that states it either.

This is clearly contrary to the Catechism. It states “Baptized by their death,” not prior to death. Stating sins are forgiven prior to death is like stating original sin is washed away prior to an infant’s Baptism. I’m also keep it simple here…only the non-baptized are addressed, not the baptized, which cause further complication.

Also, I never brought up another example in the Catechism (pertaining to suicide):

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

This clearly implies that God may not have revealed everything to man. It also implies that a mechanism

might exist for forgiveness when one dies in a state of mortal sin. The reason I believe it implies this is because if the person committing suicide somehow wasn’t in a state of mortal sin, this passage makes no sense and wouldn’t be included.

There is always Divine Mercy…and if they reject God after that, they only have themselves to blame …I think some still may , but I hope most do not

 

[thistle]

Naturally, I disagree. I don’t agree that repentance must precede martyrdom. Christ didn’t say it, and I haven’t seen anything authoritative by the Church that states it either.

This is clearly contrary to the Catechism. It states “Baptized by their death,” not prior to death. Stating sins are forgiven prior to death is like stating original sin is washed away prior to an infant’s Baptism. I’m also keep it simple here…only the non-baptized are addressed, not the baptized, which cause further complication.

Also, I never brought up another example in the Catechism (pertaining to suicide):

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

This clearly implies that God may not have revealed everything to man. It also implies that a mechanism

might exist for forgiveness when one dies in a state of mortal sin. The reason I believe it implies this is because if the person committing suicide somehow wasn’t in a state of mortal sin, this passage makes no sense and wouldn’t be included.

You are wrong.

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

There is nothing in that teaching that says those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell, except for martyrs and except for suicides!
There are NO exceptions except in your mind!

Baptism of Blood martyrs’ sins, if any, any forgiven prior to their death.
Suicides, if they are saved, have their sins forgiven prior to their death.

 

[Warrior1979]

You are wrong.

I’m simply repeating what the Catechism says. If you disagree with what I posted, you disagree with infallible dogma of the Church, not me.

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

One of the problems that I repeatedly see is that one particular portion of the Catechism, Canon Law, or Bible is quoted, and it is treated as if it is an all-encompassing, stand-alone statement. This is flat-out erroneous. The Church certainly didn’t do this with the Bible. Any particular document must be looked at as a whole, otherwise contradictions arise.

Baptism of Blood martyrs’ sins, if any, any forgiven prior to their death.

And this is an example of a contradiction if you look at CCC 1035 in a vacuum. Where does it state that sins are forgiven prior to Baptism? If sins are forgiven prior to Baptism, then you bring the whole section regarding Baptism into question in particular, and infallibility into general. CCC 1035 must be examined in the context of the whole Catechism.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

That is not correct.

If a person in a state of mortal sin makes an act of imperfect contrition and dies before they get to confession their sins are not forgiven and they would go to Hell.

A legalistic leap to a conclusion that may or may not be true. CCC 1453 doesn’t say what you think it says. In the words of another poster:

yes this is all true… but it does not say, what happens when a person CAN’T get to Confession, through no fault of their own. Will they go to hell simply because they can’t get there? I don’t think that is the Church teaching…

Indeed. The truth is always more mysterious and flexible than we realize. God does not reveal everything to His Church.

I find the notion of having to confess every last sin a tad formulaic. The entire Gospel, handed down by all four evangelists, seems to be the height of anti-formulaic religion. God does not want us to become like Pharisees, counting every last sin like coins. He doesn’t want us to be so solicitous for our failures that we despair.

I agree. I can see how, from some of the obsessive legalism that runs rampant on this forum, you might believe that your observations contradict the Catholic approach. But they do not.

Don’t get me wrong: I take seriously the teaching that we’re obligated to confess every post-baptism mortal sin we can remember. But to approach this with emotionally legalistic, quantity-obsessed paranoia is not the Catholic approach. Confession is both spiritually and psychologically helpful for a number of reasons, and to pretend that anyone would ever end up in hell over a technicality is certainly nothing more than a simple-minded distortion and utter joke.

You are wrong. God gave us freewill. We decide our own destination. If we commit a mortal sin and die in that state then we have freely chosen to go to Hell.

Hmm… from your posts, I suspect part of your ignorance stems from the fact that you don’t realize you’re projecting onto eternity an interpretation/application of a temporally-bound spiritual requirement.

To clarify: I am not disagreeing with the clear Church teaching that imperfect contrition still requires Sacramental absolution for the penitent to receive forgiveness, nor am I advocating the heretical “fundamental option” theory that JPII rejected in Veritatis Splendor.

What I am saying, thistle, is that what you are so boldly proclaiming does not absolutely follow logically from those teachings - namely, that a specific person on his way to confession with imperfect contrition who dies in that state in some kind of freak accident can be known definitively to go to hell.

That’s your own rationalistic opinion. Salvation is not a syllogism. Things look different from eternity.

Most lack nearly all the Sacraments (if not all of them).

Actually, most have baptism and matrimony.

 

[thistle]

A legalistic leap to a conclusion that may or may not be true. CCC 1453 doesn’t say what you think it says. In the words of another poster:

Indeed. The truth is always more mysterious and flexible than we realize. God does not reveal everything to His Church.

I agree. I can see how, from some of the obsessive legalism that runs rampant on this forum, you might believe that your observations contradict the Catholic approach. But they do not.

Don’t get me wrong: I take seriously the teaching that we’re obligated to confess every post-baptism mortal sin we can remember. But to approach this with emotionally legalistic, quantity-obsessed paranoia is not the Catholic approach. Confession is both spiritually and psychologically helpful for a number of reasons, and to pretend that anyone would ever end up in hell over a technicality is certainly nothing more than a simple-minded distortion and utter joke.

Hmm… from your posts, I suspect part of your ignorance stems from the fact that you don’t realize you’re projecting onto eternity an interpretation/application of a temporally-bound spiritual requirement.

To clarify: I am not disagreeing with the clear Church teaching that imperfect contrition still requires Sacramental absolution for the penitent to receive forgiveness, nor am I advocating the heretical “fundamental option” theory that JPII rejected in Veritatis Splendor.

What I am saying, thistle, is that what you are so boldly proclaiming does not absolutely follow logically from those teachings - namely, that a specific person on his way to confession with imperfect contrition who dies in that state in some kind of freak accident can be known definitively to go to hell.
That’s your own rationalistic opinion. Salvation is not a syllogism. Things look different from eternity.

Actually, most have baptism and matrimony.

Re the highlighted part.
Anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell (Church teaching).
Imperfect Contrition does not forgive mortal sins (Church teaching) so the mortal sins of a person making an act of imperfect contrition remain. If that person dies before going to Confession they are dying in a state of mortal sin.

If there is the chance that a person making an act of imperfect and dying before getting to Confession can be saved then perfect and imperfect contrition essentially become the same act. Why would the Church then specifically teach that they are very different, ie. perfect contrition forgives mortals sins while imperfect contrition does not.

 

[thistle]

I’m simply repeating what the Catechism says. If you disagree with what I posted, you disagree with infallible dogma of the Church, not me.

One of the problems that I repeatedly see is that one particular portion of the Catechism, Canon Law, or Bible is quoted, and it is treated as if it is an all-encompassing, stand-alone statement. This is flat-out erroneous. The Church certainly didn’t do this with the Bible. Any particular document must be looked at as a whole, otherwise contradictions arise.

And this is an example of a contradiction if you look at CCC 1035 in a vacuum. Where does it state that sins are forgiven prior to Baptism? If sins are forgiven prior to Baptism, then you bring the whole section regarding Baptism into question in particular, and infallibility into general. CCC 1035 must be examined in the context of the whole Catechism.

So you mean you are right and everyone else is wrong, including the two priests I discussed this with???

 

[Warrior1979]

So you mean you are right and everyone else is wrong, including the two priests I discussed this with???

I am not claiming to be right. My opinions expressed here are based solely on the Catechism.

What the priests said is clearly contrary to the Catechism. Sins are not forgiven prior to Baptism. If that were the case, Baptism would never be needed in the first place.

No disrespect to any priest, but issues like this are more theological in nature and the priest might not have the correct answer. These types are things are best answered by theologians, or possibly bishops.

I have no idea what you asked the priest, or how you did it. Specificity matters in these types of issues. A simple question about mortal sin and/or one specific part of the Catechism will not suffice. There must be followup.

If the priest really did indicate that sins are forgiven prior to Baptism, I would follow up with asking how that could be. Sins being forgiven prior to Baptism is objectively nonsense.

 

[thistle]

I am not claiming to be right. My opinions expressed here are based solely on the Catechism.

What the priests said is clearly contrary to the Catechism. Sins are not forgiven prior to Baptism. If that were the case, Baptism would never be needed in the first place.

No disrespect to any priest, but issues like this are more theological in nature and the priest might not have the correct answer. These types are things are best answered by theologians, or possibly bishops.

I have no idea what you asked the priest, or how you did it. Specificity matters in these types of issues. A simple question about mortal sin and/or one specific part of the Catechism will not suffice. There must be followup.

If the priest really did indicate that sins are forgiven prior to Baptism, I would follow up with asking how that could be. Sins being forgiven prior to Baptism is objectively nonsense.

Actually you are disrespecting two priests, both of whom are very learned and experienced. One is in his sixties and the other his seventies. To suggest they may have given me a wrong answer due to the way I phrased the question simply makes you out to be a fool.

The Church teaching is very clear and you cannot wiggle your way around it.

CCC 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

It does not say there are any exceptions.

 

[Warrior1979]

Actually you are disrespecting two priests, both of whom are very learned and experienced. One is in his sixties and the other his seventies. To suggest they may have given me a wrong answer due to the way I phrased the question simply makes you out to be a fool.

Name calling is always helpful. It’s typically done as a sign of frustration, when one’s preconceived beliefs are challenged and cannot be defended.

I’m not a fly on the wall. I don’t know how you asked and what they answered. The manner the question is asked and the followup matters. If the priests really stated sins are forgiven prior to Baptism, please go back to them and ask them what is the basis for that opinion. It is not in the Bible, Catechism, Canon Law, nor has state by the Pope. Until then, it is their own personal opinion. It in fact is completely contrary to the Catechism.

Priests are not infallible. Numerous examples are cited all over this forum. I can cite examples of priests supporting condoms. Because a priest states this, does this make it okay?

The Church teaching is very clear and you cannot wiggle your way around it.

Nor can you.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

In the above, no indication of forgiveness of sins prior to Baptism. Nor can you cite anything indicating that position.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

The above is absolutely unnecessary unless it involves mortal sin. It also places the judgment in God’s hands, allowing God the final decision, which has been my opinion all along.

While you continue to cite one part of the Catechism, and taking the opinion that it preempts all of the Catechism, you cannot reconcile that above.

It does not say there are any exceptions.

Then the only conclusion between the parts of the Catechism that you and I cited are self-contradictory.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Re the highlighted part.
Anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to Hell (Church teaching).
Imperfect Contrition does not forgive mortal sins (Church teaching) so the mortal sins of a person making an act of imperfect contrition remain. If that person dies before going to Confession they are dying in a state of mortal sin.

I’m not saying we can know such a person goes to heaven - far from it. I think it’s important to recognize, however, that we cannot have certainty that such a person goes to hell.

Obviously I agree with the points you state above as they are all indeed Church teaching. Pretty straightforward. But your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises, because some unknown mercy of God may somehow be applied to such a person’s soul due to their unique situation. CCC 1453 says (emphasis mine):

1453 The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

We’re not maintaining that imperfect contrition itself “obtains the forgiveness of grave sins” - obviously the Catechism there rules that out explicitly. But God is not limited to working in the ways He revealed that He does to His Church.

In our hypothetical example, the Catechism makes it clear that “by itself” this imperfect contrition doesn’t procure for him forgiveness. But considering the Biblical teaching that God wills damnation for no one, and considering how unnecessary, petty, and extraordinarily unfortunate our hypothetical man’s damnation would be, it’s not unlikely that divine mercy is not in play in some unknown way. This is possible according to Church teaching because the possibility is not, as I’ve explained, equivalent to the (clearly heretical) assertion that imperfect contrition on its own procures forgiveness for grave sins.

If I may make a comparison…

“No salvation outside the Church” is obviously an infallible part of the Church’s teaching, at least by virtue of the ordinary Magisterium. Countless saints, popes, theologians, etc. have taught this notion in some form or another.

Furthermore, the Church has always authoritatively rejected the notion that there is any real dichotomy between the institutional Church and the invisible Body of Christ. Pius XII made quite clear in Mystici Corporis that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Church are the same thing.

Despite this, however, when Fr. Leonard Feeney began teaching in the 1940s and 50s that one can definitively know from this teaching that any particular individual known to have died outside the visible confines of the institutional Church is in hell, without exception, the Holy Office in Rome disagreed.

I’m not comparing what you’re saying to imply that you’re being disobedient or anything like that, thistle. I do not believe you are in any way.

What I am saying is this: just as Feeney’s interpretation only seemed to follow logically and definitively from the true and authoritative premises he based it on, so does your application/interpretation of the Church’s teaching on contrition to individual hypotheticals only seem to follow necessarily.

See?

 

[Warrior1979]

What I am saying is this: just as Feeney’s interpretation only seemed to follow logically and definitively from the true and authoritative premises he based it on, so does your application/interpretation of the Church’s teaching on contrition to individual hypotheticals only seem to follow necessarily.

See?

IMHO, it’s even more explicit in this case, due to CCC 2283.

 

[thistle]

Name calling is always helpful. It’s typically done as a sign of frustration, when one’s preconceived beliefs are challenged and cannot be defended.

I’m not a fly on the wall. I don’t know how you asked and what they answered. The manner the question is asked and the followup matters. If the priests really stated sins are forgiven prior to Baptism, please go back to them and ask them what is the basis for that opinion. It is not in the Bible, Catechism, Canon Law, nor has state by the Pope. Until then, it is their own personal opinion. It in fact is completely contrary to the Catechism.

Priests are not infallible. Numerous examples are cited all over this forum. I can cite examples of priests supporting condoms. Because a priest states this, does this make it okay?

Nor can you.

In the above, no indication of forgiveness of sins prior to Baptism. Nor can you cite anything indicating that position.

The above is absolutely unnecessary unless it involves mortal sin. It also places the judgment in God’s hands, allowing God the final decision, which has been my opinion all along.

While you continue to cite one part of the Catechism, and taking the opinion that it preempts all of the Catechism, you cannot reconcile that above.

Then the only conclusion between the parts of the Catechism that you and I cited are self-contradictory.

Thanks for playing.

Such arrogance. Ever heard of the sin of pride??

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

IMHO, it’s even more explicit in this case, due to CCC 2283.

Yes, good point, especially this sentence: "By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance."

If this is true of someone who is taking his own life, certainly it’s true of someone explicitly intending to complete his repentance with Sacramental confession and absolution!

 

[Warrior1979]

You disrespected two priests. There is no getting away from that.

It is more proper to say that you believe I disrespected two priests. I do not know these priests, nor do I know what you asked, nor do I even know if you actually asked a priest anything.

However, I don’t believe the problem in your case are the priests. The reason is that you have no answer for the questions I’ve raised, indicating you likely answered a simple question with no followup. You can’t explain how sins are forgiven prior to Baptism…clearly a preposterous idea…nor will you address it, because it will be an admittance that understanding is incomplete.

My defence is the actual Church teaching which is crystal clear and unambiguous.

You will never have a full understanding of the Church if you view each part of the Catechism, Canon Law, Bible, etc. as a stand-alone, all encompassing statement. That’s why you have, and continue to, ignore other parts of the Catechism that clearly indicate your position is wrong.