Baltimore Catechism

Why don't you just admit you don't believe the Catholic Church is necessary, because you don't. You don't believe Christ founded the Church and the sacraments for the salvation of man. You reject the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

The exception always becomes the rule for you. Show me where in even the Novus Ordo teaching where it says that everyone that is baptized is invincibly ignorant. You can't. You just make up your own religion as you go along, just like your fellow Protestants on this forum. You have never once cited any teachings to back up any of your opinions.

I'm sorry you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, you are heretic. You have your own made-up religion.

As usual, you have it exactly backwards. It is precisely because of the teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy, that I reject the Vatican II popes, and especially Pachamama Jorge, as false popes.

I'm not even going to bother to post any magisterium that refers to the papacy, because the Church's teachings are completely meaningless to you.
It isn't that I reject the teaching of the Church, sir, but it is US that are bound to the Sacraments, not God.
 
It isn't that I reject the teaching of the Church, sir, but it is US that are bound to the Sacraments, not God.
God established the sacraments and the Church as the unique means of salvation for mankind, although I know you don't believe that.

Look, here's how I look at the question of unbaptized infants.

None of us deserve the Beatific Vision. The only reason any of us make it to heaven is because of God's infinite grace and mercy through the Catholic Church.

Infants are not born innocent. They are born with original sin.

It is a widely held belief, although I don't think it has been defined, that God does not punish anyone according to what they deserve, but in His mercy, punishes them less than they deserve.

You assume that God would be unjust to send those in a state of original sin to Limbo and deprive them of the Beatific Vision. But how do you know that these infants would be saved and attain the Beatific Vision if they had lived? Who is depriving these children of baptism? There are many different kinds of intervention of the free will of other men concerning these infants.

It is a De fide dogma of the Church that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God, although I know you don't believe that, but that is the defined dogma of the Church.

What if most of these infants who died with original sin, if they had lived, would have been lost and gone to hell forever? In that case it would be a great mercy for them to go to a state of natural bliss rather than to be tormented in hell forever. God is not bound to perform miracles in order that all infants can be baptized.

Unlike you, I believe what the Church teaches and leave the rest to God's mercy and providence.
 
God established the sacraments and the Church as the unique means of salvation for mankind, although I know you don't believe that.
I DO believe this.

What I also believe is that GOD is NOT bound by the Sacraments, sir. God, sir, does not need the Sacraments. God, sir, can if He chooses work outside the Sacraments to effect salvation. This He did. As I said, on the cross--he forgave those crucifying him--without Confession and without baptism. He also forgave the thief--without Baptism and without Confession. Thus, it is clear that God can and DOES work outside the Sacramenta system. I simply allow for this possibility. You on the other hand seem to think the more people in Hell, the better. You want to offer no hope to parents of unbaptized children.

Thank heaven you are not a priest. I fear what you might be like--and how much spiritual damage you would do to people in grief.
Look, here's how I look at the question of unbaptized infants. None of us deserve the Beatific Vision. The only reason any of us make it to heaven is because of God's infinite grace and mercy through the Catholic Church.
Yeah, like, no kidding.
Infants are not born innocent. They are born with original sin.
Yeah, like, no kidding. I am not suggesting an infant can go to heaven without the action of God's grace. I am simply allowing for the possibility that God works to forgive or otherwise wipe away Original Sin outside of Baptism as an exception. Nothing more. I do not think we should despair for the salvation of unbaptized infants. That is all I am saying. I do not understand why this is so bothersome to you.
It is a widely held belief, although I don't think it has been defined, that God does not punish anyone according to what they deserve, but in His mercy, punishes them less than they deserve.
I am sure grieving parents of a child who died before they were able to be baptized would find this very comforting, sir. Again, thank heaven you aren't a priest. I truly fear what would happen if you were.
You assume that God would be unjust to send those in a state of original sin to Limbo and deprive them of the Beatific Vision. But how do you know that these infants would be saved and attain the Beatific Vision if they had lived? Who is depriving these children of baptism? There are many different kinds of intervention of the free will of other men concerning these infants.
I assume nothing, sir. I am simply allowing for the possibility that all is not lost for an unbaptized infant. I am allowing for the possibility that God works outside of the Sacraments. I am simply saying--we need not despair for the salvation of an unbaptized infant. God is a God of love and mercy. We may hope in that.
It is a De fide dogma of the Church that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God, although I know you don't believe that, but that is the defined dogma of the Church.
No, I believe this. I just allow for the possibility that God can work to forgive Original Sin outside of Baptism. That is it. Again, I fail to see why this is so bothersome to you. You must be one of those people who really like the idea of people going to Hell--because the more people you can assign to Hell based on technicalities, the more special you think you are--since you think you are not going to Hell.
What if most of these infants who died with original sin, if they had lived, would have been lost and gone to hell forever? In that case it would be a great mercy for them to go to a state of natural bliss rather than to be tormented in hell forever. God is not bound to perform miracles in order that all infants can be baptized.
God is NOT bound to anything sir, that is my point. God has bound US to Baptism; it does not follow God is bound to Baptism, does it? Again, I allow for the possibility that God in His mercy works outside of Baptism to forgive Original Sin. Nothing more. I fail to see why hoping in God's love and mercy is bad, heretical and evil.
Unlike you, I believe what the Church teaches and leave the rest to God's mercy and providence.
Well there you go then. That is exactly what you SHOULD be doing--rather than speaking definitively and claiming unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven--because--heaven forbid God work outside of baptism to forgive someone!
 
Did you have the unfortunate experience of being taught from the Roman Catholic Church's "Baltimore Catechism" - that 400 year old basic tool of Roman Catholic religious education? RCC children as young as only 6 years old had to memorize word-for-word, things that had no meaning or understanding to them at all. Generations of RCC children ages 6-13 had to memorize and recite Roman Catholic Church doctrinal formulations, along with lists of numerous meaningless definitons, sacraments, sins, virtues, graces and commandments. Does this sound like blatant "indoctrination" to you?
Perhaps you're just using hyperbole but the Baltimore Catechism isn't 400 years old. Baltimore isn't even 400 years old. The BC was published in 1885 or thereabouts.
 
I DO believe this.

What I also believe is that GOD is NOT bound by the Sacraments, sir. God, sir, does not need the Sacraments. God, sir, can if He chooses work outside the Sacraments to effect salvation. This He did. As I said, on the cross--he forgave those crucifying him--without Confession and without baptism. He also forgave the thief--without Baptism and without Confession. Thus, it is clear that God can and DOES work outside the Sacramenta system. I simply allow for this possibility. You on the other hand seem to think the more people in Hell, the better. You want to offer no hope to parents of unbaptized children.

Thank heaven you are not a priest. I fear what you might be like--and how much spiritual damage you would do to people in grief.

Yeah, like, no kidding.

Yeah, like, no kidding. I am not suggesting an infant can go to heaven without the action of God's grace. I am simply allowing for the possibility that God works to forgive or otherwise wipe away Original Sin outside of Baptism as an exception. Nothing more. I do not think we should despair for the salvation of unbaptized infants. That is all I am saying. I do not understand why this is so bothersome to you.

I am sure grieving parents of a child who died before they were able to be baptized would find this very comforting, sir. Again, thank heaven you aren't a priest. I truly fear what would happen if you were.

I assume nothing, sir. I am simply allowing for the possibility that all is not lost for an unbaptized infant. I am allowing for the possibility that God works outside of the Sacraments. I am simply saying--we need not despair for the salvation of an unbaptized infant. God is a God of love and mercy. We may hope in that.

No, I believe this. I just allow for the possibility that God can work to forgive Original Sin outside of Baptism. That is it. Again, I fail to see why this is so bothersome to you. You must be one of those people who really like the idea of people going to Hell--because the more people you can assign to Hell based on technicalities, the more special you think you are--since you think you are not going to Hell.

God is NOT bound to anything sir, that is my point. God has bound US to Baptism; it does not follow God is bound to Baptism, does it? Again, I allow for the possibility that God in His mercy works outside of Baptism to forgive Original Sin. Nothing more. I fail to see why hoping in God's love and mercy is bad, heretical and evil.

Well there you go then. That is exactly what you SHOULD be doing--rather than speaking definitively and claiming unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven--because--heaven forbid God work outside of baptism to forgive someone!
It is a De fide dogma of the Church that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

This is the defined dogma of the Church. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't look for "exceptions."
 
It is a De fide dogma of the Church that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

That's the problem.

The Catholic Church has nowhere provided an official, infallible list of all their dogmas you Catholics are supposed to believe.

They do this on purpose. They get a kick out of devout Catholics arguing with each other about what is really really true dogma. You are being played.
 
It is a De fide dogma of the Church that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

This is the defined dogma of the Church. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't look for "exceptions."
This is all correct---unless God chooses to work outside the Sacraments and save them. I hope and pray that God DOES do so--and thus, I believe all is not necessarily lost for those who die without water Baptism.

I hold out hope that perhaps God might work outside the Sacraments--since God doesn't need the Sacraments to save people. As I continue to say, and you continue to ignore the fact that God has bound US to the Sacraments. It does not follow that GOD is bound to the Sacraments. God does not need water to save someone, sir. God may act in any way God chooses to save someone.

Again, I am thanking God that you are not a priest. The spiritual damage you would do to grieving parents-----is scarier in my mind than Hell and damnation itself.
 
Again, I am thanking God that you are not a priest. The spiritual damage you would do to grieving parents-----is scarier in my mind than Hell and damnation itself.

Hahahaha. You should read Augustine!

He was a priest, no?

A hero of your faith, yet he taught exactly the same thing. And know what is funny? He was never corrected for it. Not one pope censured him for the "spiritual damage" he did to grieving parents.

Nope.

You condemn Mysterium, yet by doing so you condemn your entire church. As a matter of fact, that is EXACTLY what Augustine said about you.

No doubt, you would have us believe you understand Catholicism better than the great Doctor. This is the humor of it all.
 
That's the problem.
No it isn't the problem.

The problem is that the poster goes further than the teaching itself by suggesting that God Himself is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work outside of them to save people. The Church teaches one cannot be saved apart from God's Grace. The Church does NOT teach that God is bound to the Sacraments and cannot work outside of the Sacraments. The Church does NOT teach that we are forbidden from hoping in the salvation of a infant who dies before Baptism. The Church does NOT teach that we are forbidden from commending the unbaptized infant to God's love and mercy and hoping in their salvation. THAT is the problem. The poster is making things up to suit their agenda.
The Catholic Church has nowhere provided an official, infallible list of all their dogmas you Catholics are supposed to believe.
They do this on purpose. They get a kick out of devout Catholics arguing with each other about what is really really true dogma. You are being played.
Why do we need such a list? What are we? Stupid? You mean to suggest we don't know what is infallible without such a list?
While we are asked to produce this "list" of infallible teachings, why don't you go ahead and produce a list of all the God Breathed and infallible teachings of Scripture. Oh, right--there is no such list either. That must mean you don't know what the Bible teaches.
 
Hahahaha. You should read Augustine!

He was a priest, no?
No he wasn't a priest. He was a bishop. Augustine was a smart man. It does not follow he got everything right.
A hero of your faith, yet he taught exactly the same thing.
Sure he did. A lot of the ECF taught things we do not believe today. What is your point? Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the most brilliant theologians known in the Church. He didn't get it all right either you know.
And know what is funny? He was never corrected for it. Not one pope censured him for the "spiritual damage" he did to grieving parents.
So? The doctrine of Limbo was neither officially taught, nor was it officially condemned. It remains this today. Catholics are free to defend the doctrine, they are free to reject the doctrine as they see fit. Only a minority of Catholics defend the doctrine today. The trend of the Magisterium has been to distance herself from the doctrine.
You condemn Mysterium, yet by doing so you condemn your entire church. As a matter of fact, that is EXACTLY what Augustine said about you.
So?
No doubt, you would have us believe you understand Catholicism better than the great Doctor. This is the humor of it all.
Augustine sure was a great doctor and thinker. How does it follow he got everything right?
 
You mean to suggest we don't know what is infallible without such a list?
based on the interpretation of the doctrines on infallibility:
is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible doctrine?
no
yes
 
based on the interpretation of the doctrines on infallibility:
is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible doctrine?
no
yes
Seriously dude?

Shows how much you know about Catholicism.

The National Catholic Reporter is about as "Catholic" as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. That is to say--not Catholic at all. It is an independent news organization that reports on news items of interest in Catholicism. NCR argues that women's ordination is not infallible becasue they don't want it to be infallibly taught. They know if it is infallibly taught---the doctrine cannot be changed. It isn't for lack of a clear teaching. NCR is pushing an agenda and always has been.

Would you suggest that the Bible is unclear about its teachings on homosexuality---just becasue there are modern "scholars" who argue such a thing? No. You know as well as I do that the Bible is quite clear on its teachings on homosexuality. The reason "scholars" argue it isn't--is becasue they are pushing an agenda--not becasue Scripture is unclear.

NCR would be one of those publications that would argue Scripture does not actually forbid homosexuality. There--I guess that means Scripture is unclear right? NCR is as credible arguing Church teaching on women's ordination is unclear as they are in arguing Scripture does not actually condemn homosexuality.

Now, there IS debate over whether Pope JPII exercised PAPAL infallibility when he wrote the document clarifying the Church's position on women's ordination. That I will grant is open for debate. But most teachings of the Church are not defined by the pope, but are instead part of the teaching of the ORDINARY Magisterium.
 
This is all correct---unless God chooses to work outside the Sacraments and save them. I hope and pray that God DOES do so--and thus, I believe all is not necessarily lost for those who die without water Baptism.

I hold out hope that perhaps God might work outside the Sacraments--since God doesn't need the Sacraments to save people. As I continue to say, and you continue to ignore the fact that God has bound US to the Sacraments. It does not follow that GOD is bound to the Sacraments. God does not need water to save someone, sir. God may act in any way God chooses to save someone.

Again, I am thanking God that you are not a priest. The spiritual damage you would do to grieving parents-----is scarier in my mind than Hell and damnation itself.
The fact that you believe stating what the Catholic Church teaches is scarier than Hell and damnation itself is very telling.

But you don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, you believe in "exceptions." The exception becomes the rule; everyone that is baptized are under invincible ignorance and therefore are "saved." There is no teaching in your Novus Ordo sect to back up your religion of opinions.

If the exception becomes the rule, the rule ceases to exist and renders the Catholic Church completely unnecessary.

God can choose to save whomever He wants in His Providence, but He does no injustice to anyone. In the end, every soul is going to end up exactly where they are supposed to be. The Catholic Church was founded as the unique means of salvation for man, outside of which there is no salvation. That is the teaching of the Church, which you deny because of "exceptions."

If a contract has an infinite number of "exceptions" and loopholes, then the contract is worthless and unnecessary. Would you jump out of an airplane without a parachute because there are "exceptions" to the rule that you will die if you do that? I mean, I'm sure there are some people who have jumped out of an airplane without a parachute that have lived.

It is a De fide dogma of the Church that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. You can say that you believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, but what you believe in is "exceptions" and your unfounded opinions.

The Catholic Church teaches that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church and that non-Catholic sects are in no communion with the Catholic Church and are absolutely excluded from the Mystical Body of Christ, but you reject this teaching for your made-up religion of opinions.
 
The fact that you believe stating what the Catholic Church teaches is scarier than Hell and damnation itself is very telling.
Sir, I said the idea of you being a priest and counseling people in grief with "There, there, it will all be okay, your unbaptized child is in Hell and has absolutely NO hope of salvation because God cannot work outside of the Sacraments" is what is scarier than hell and damnation itself.

Get right what I see, please.
But you don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, you believe in "exceptions." The exception becomes the rule; everyone that is baptized are under invincible ignorance and therefore are "saved." There is no teaching in your Novus Ordo sect to back up your religion of opinions.
Sir, I believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation. What I do NOT believe is that it follows that God cannot work outside of the Sacramental system He has bound us to. God commanded Baptism for salvation, therefore we baptize. Does this mean God is bound to Baptism? NO. Does this mean God cannot work to save someone outside of Baptism? NO.

The problem I have with you, sir, is that you jump to conclusions.
If the exception becomes the rule, the rule ceases to exist and renders the Catholic Church completely unnecessary.
Who said the exception is the rule? When did I say "Don't worry about getting baptized, God will save you regardless?"

All I said is that I do not believe we should abandon all hope for those babies who die before baptism. Is God a God of technicalities? I sure hope not!
God can choose to save whomever He wants in His Providence,
Amen! Are you finally starting to understand? Not only can God choose to save whomever He wants in His providence, God can choose to save whomever He wants, HOWEVER he wants!
but He does no injustice to anyone
Who said anything about God doing injustice to people?
In the end, every soul is going to end up exactly where they are supposed to be.
When did I say otherwise?
The Catholic Church was founded as the unique means of salvation for man, outside of which there is no salvation. That is the teaching of the Church, which you deny because of "exceptions."
Who denies anything? You yourself said God can choose to save whomever He wants. God can also save whomever He wants, HOWEVER He wants. Thus, if God wants to save someone outside of the normal means which He has set up for salvation, who is to tell God He cannot do that?

You are in essence saying to God: "The Church teaches that because YOU have bound us to the Sacraments, YOU may not act outside of the Sacramental System to save people. You must act within the system you established to save people--otherwise---the Sacraments are meaningless and unnecessary."

Sir, I choose not to place limits on God's love or generosity. You apparently like placing limits on God.
If a contract has an infinite number of "exceptions" and loopholes, then the contract is worthless and unnecessary. Would you jump out of an airplane without a parachute because there are "exceptions" to the rule that you will die if you do that? I mean, I'm sure there are some people who have jumped out of an airplane without a parachute that have lived.
Your analogy presupposes that I am arguing we do not have to worry about getting baptized. I am not arguing that.
It is a De fide dogma of the Church that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.
Correct: unless God chooses to save them some way, somehow, known to Him alone, they would be excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

Where does the Church teach that God CANNOT save them outside of the Sacramental system? Where does the Church teach that we should abandon all hope for those who died without water Baptism?
You can say that you believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, but what you believe in is "exceptions" and your unfounded opinions.
I am merely stating is that I believe God CAN make exceptions, since God is not bound to the Sacraments.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
The Catholic Church teaches that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church and that non-Catholic sects are in no communion with the Catholic Church and are absolutely excluded from the Mystical Body of Christ, but you reject this teaching for your made-up religion of opinions.
No, the rad-trad Church that is not in union with Rome teaches this.
 
The Church does NOT teach that we are forbidden from hoping in the salvation of a infant who dies before Baptism.

It used to. LOL.

Here is your pal Augustine explaining to you what the Catholic Church teaches:

"If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin."

"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it (the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ"


So according to Auggie....you are NOT a Catholic and you condemn Christ's Church.

Why do we need such a list?

Because none of you can tell us what the dogmas of the Catholic Church are...without lying and making it up as you go.

And since you are told you must believe all the dogmas of your sect, you would think you would want to know them so you can do so. But interestingly, you prefer ignorance.
 
Now, there IS debate over whether Pope JPII exercised PAPAL infallibility when he wrote the document clarifying the Church's position on women's ordination. That I will grant is open for debate. But most teachings of the Church are not defined by the pope, but are instead part of the teaching of the ORDINARY Magisterium.

Wasn't that my point?
You claimed "You mean to suggest we don't know what is infallible without such a list?"

We have Catholics claiming their CCC is infallible
We have Catholics claiming Unam Sanctam is not infallible
and you conceded there is debate on whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible.
Is the canonization of Saints infallible?

so yes I am suggesting Catholics don't know what is infallible without such a list
so yes, a list would help Catholics
 
Last edited:
What I also believe is that GOD is NOT bound by the Sacraments, sir. God, sir, does not need the Sacraments. God, sir, can if He chooses work outside the Sacraments to effect salvation. This He did. As I said, on the cross--he forgave those crucifying him--without Confession and without baptism. He also forgave the thief--without Baptism and without Confession. Thus, it is clear that God can and DOES work outside the Sacramenta system. I simply allow for this possibility. You on the other hand seem to think the more people in Hell, the better. You want to offer no hope to parents of unbaptized children

If the RCC doesn't believe that the sacrament of baptism is essential, why does the Baltimore Catechism say otherwise and actually gives the reader instructions on how to perform emergency baptism, rpp?

And this belief about baptism predates the publication of the Baltimore Catechism. Anna Morisi performed her emergency baptism on little Edguardo in the 1850's, so she had to have been given the same instructions.
 
Wasn't that my point?
You claimed "You mean to suggest we don't know what is infallible without such a list?"

We have Catholics claiming their CCC is infallible
It is
We have Catholics claiming Unam Sanctam is not infallible
What do you mean by "infallible?" The disagreement is on whether Unam Sanctam was an exercise of the Extra-ordinary Magisterium; that is to say--whether the document is an exercise of PAPAL infallibility.

Now, there are two documents that EVERYONE in the Church agrees were exercises of papal infallibility. Both of the documents have to do with Mary. The first was in 1854 by Pius IX. The famous "I am Tradition" pope. The second was in 1950 by Pius XII. (Or 1955. I cannot remember the exact date.) Does Unam Sanctam look or otherwise compare in any way to those documents? I would say "NO." Thus, I would say Unam Sanctam was NOT an exercise of papal infallibility.

However, the document is a magisterial document part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It remains authoritative today. I think everyone agrees on that also.
and you conceded there is debate on whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible.
I conceded that there is debate on whether that document is an exercise of PAPAL infallibility. The document is part of the Ordinary Magesterium of the Church and remains authoritative. Those who argue that the document is not infallible---want women to be ordained. In other words---the REASON they are arguing that the document is not clear, or that it's binding authority is not clear---is NOT because it isn't clear, but because they are pushing an agenda. This is just like the scholars who argue Scripture does not condemn homosexuality. The Scriptures DO condemn homosexuality. The reason they argue the Scriptures aren't clear is because they are pushing an agenda, not because the Scriptures are not clear.

Chruch teaching on women's ordination is crystal clear. What is in dispute is whether the document is an exercise of PAPAL infallibility.
Is the canonization of Saints infallible?
When the pope is involved, YES. Up till 1200 (or so) the pope was not involved. Thus, whatever happened in the early Church regarding saints and the "erroneous" calendar isn't relevant to discussions on papal infallibility.
so yes I am suggesting Catholics don't know what is infallible without such a list so yes, a list would help Catholics

Does the Scripture teach TULIP? Depends on whether the person you are asking is a five pointer.

Does the Scriptures teach Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura? Depends on whether the person you are asking is a fundamentalist or traditional reformed.

Does the Scriptures teach a spiritual presence, a symbolic presence, a Lutheran type presence, or a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist? Depends on your sect.

Why don't you give me a list of all the infallible teachings of Scripture--and then explain why YOUR list is any better than the list someone else produces that disagrees with your list.
 
It used to. LOL.

Here is your pal Augustine explaining to you what the Catholic Church teaches:

"If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin."

"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it (the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ"

So according to Auggie....you are NOT a Catholic and you condemn Christ's Church.
Augustine considered as an individual bishop and theologian---is NOT the magisterium of the Church. I told you---Augustine was a brilliant doctor of the Church. It does not follow he got everything right. It is true that Augustine's speculations on this subject were common belief. The Church however never officially taught them.
Because none of you can tell us what the dogmas of the Catholic Church are...without lying and making it up as you go.

And since you are told you must believe all the dogmas of your sect, you would think you would want to know them so you can do so. But interestingly, you prefer ignorance.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything.
 
If the RCC doesn't believe that the sacrament of baptism is essential,
Where did I say baptism is not essential? It IS essential. God commanded it. Baptism is essential for US because God commanded it.

What I said was that Baptism is not necessary for GOD. God does not need Baptism.
why does the Baltimore Catechism say otherwise and actually gives the reader instructions on how to perform emergency baptism, rpp?
Because God commanded baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
And this belief about baptism predates the publication of the Baltimore Catechism.
Correct. Goes all the way back to the Bible.
Anna Morisi performed her emergency baptism on little Edguardo in the 1850's, so she had to have been given the same instructions.
Great. Your point?
 
Back
Top