Roman

@CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Trent 5.5 defined the born again as the baptized, 6.3 defined: "if they were not born again (baptized) in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just."

@1Friarminor So a major post Trent BOD advocate, St. Alphonsus, taught that the BOD don't have temporal punishment removed. But Trent 5.5 teaches the baptized are born again and buried together with Christ by baptism and can enter heaven immediately! This is a clear problem for the BOD crowd.

St. Alphonsus said: BOD does not remove all temporal punishment, but Trent Session 5 Canon 5 defines all who are baptized "born again" have nothing delaying their entry into heaven, so BOD alone can't constitute being "born again" as Trent defines. BOD isn't a full substitute.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Thank you. We can conclude that Trent is defining all justification comes from the sacraments, Trent 6.7 defined the instrumental cause of initial justification is the sacrament of baptism, and the Preface and 14.1 and 14.2 are perfectly consistent with this.

Yes, exactly. Session 7's Preface (Decree on the Sacraments) states the sacraments are how "all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired." This directly supports Sess. 6 Ch. 7 naming baptism as the instrumental cause of (initial) justification, with perfect consistency.

The instrumental/sacramental cause-Florence: "Since the holy Trinity is the principal cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament." Combined/external minister/cause/sacrament=instrumental cause= Trent 6.7

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Exactly. The Preface defined that all true justification is begun or is increased or is restored by the sacraments. This is why the council can define in 6.7 that indeed the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. This is perfectly consistent.

Yes, precisely. Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 7 states the instrumental cause of justification is "the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified." The indelible baptismal character (spiritual sign of Christ) is imprinted only by actual reception of the sacrament (Sess. 7 Can. 9), not by desire/votum alone. Sess. 14.1-2 and the Preface treat penance and justification's necessity but align with this.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Correct. So the more precise wording is that the instrumental cause of justification and the unique character of Christ on the soul is the sacrament of baptism 6.7 14.1 14.2 Preface. The word ordinary doesn't appear in the council text but is a later theological explanation.

Yes, exactly. Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 4 (DH 796) states justification "cannot be effected" (fieri non potest) "without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof" (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto). The "ordinary/extraordinary" distinction is standard post-Trent theology to explain this without contradicting the council's precise wording.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Very good. So "ordinary means" is a later post-council explanation, but certainly does not explicitly appear in the council text.

Correct: "Ordinary" (capital O, meaning local bishop: "the Ordinary of the place") appears frequently in Trent's disciplinary canons. But "ordinary" or "ordinary means/way" never appears in any session regarding justification, baptism, or its causes—not in Sess. 6 (Preface, Ch. 4, Ch. 7), Sess. 7, Sess. 14, or elsewhere. The ordinary/extraordinary distinction is standard later theology explaining Trent's exact wording: "sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest."

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor No "ordinary" or "ordinary means" appears anywhere in Trent?

The Latin in Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 4 (DH 796) is exactly: "quae quidem translatio post Evangelii promulgationem sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest." "sine ... fieri non potest" literally = "cannot take place/be effected without." Standard English renders it "cannot be effected except by/through" to convey the necessity (only via the sacrament or desire). No "ordinary" appears in Trent anywhere, as stated.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor What are the Latin words you are using that mean "except by" in Trent 6.4? So you actually added the word ordinary. It's not not grammatically correct. And ordinary way appears in none of the places you mentioned.

No, Trent does not use "ordinary way" anywhere in Session 6 (Preface, Ch. 4 on justification, Ch. 7 on its causes, or any other chapter/canon), nor in Session 14 Ch. 1 or 2 (on Penance). Session 6 Ch. 4 states verbatim: justification "cannot be effected, except by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" (DH 796). The ordinary/extraordinary distinction is standard post-Trent theology explaining this text.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Does Trent use the word ordinary way in 6.7? The Preface? 14.1 ? 14.2?

Trent Sess. 6 Ch. 4 explicitly: justification "cannot be effected, except by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" (since Gospel promulgation). Catechumens dying with explicit desire + faith/contrition are justified & enter heaven (no limbo). No character without sacrament (Sess. 7 Canon 9). Session 6 Preface addresses justification errors broadly; detail is in Ch. 4.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor So the instrumental cause in Trent 6/7 is the sacrament of baptism. Without it there is no character and no justification. Do these not baptized people go straight to heaven who die not baptized? If so, what council defined that explicitly. Does the Preface of Trent say this?

Trent Session 7 Canon 9 (infallible): If anyone says that in the three sacraments—baptism, confirmation, and order—there is not imprinted on the soul a character, a spiritual and indelible mark by which they cannot be repeated, let him be anathema. No sacrament received means no character. Trent Session 6 Chapter 4: justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof. Instrumental cause is the sacrament ordinarily; desire supplies its effect when impossible. Lateran IV (DH 430): one universal Church of the faithful outside which none saved—doctrine holds desire unites catechumens to it.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Can you show this detail explicitly from an infallible council or only fallible catechisms? They go to heaven with no character, the instrumental cause of their justification is the sacrament of baptism. They aren't really the faithful like Lateran 4 says.

No, desire supplies baptism's fruits (grace, remission of sins, regeneration) for catechumens dying before the rite via explicit faith/intent (Trent Sess. 6 ch. 4; CCC 1259), but is not its instrumental cause—the sacrament is. It confers no character (indelible mark only from water baptism; CCC 1272-73; ST III q.66 a.1). Catechumens aren't "really the faithful" sacramentally; the Mass dismissal marks their actual preparatory status in the Church, not pretense. They desire full visible unity.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor So their desire is the instrumental cause of their salvation and the ontology of being born again and a new creation in Christ, and that's also how they receive the character of Christ. They are really the faithful, they just pretend not to be when they leave the church. Got it.

Yes, in the traditional Roman Rite (and ancient liturgies), the Mass divides into two distinct parts: the Mass of the Catechumens (Introit through the Creed/homily, open to unbaptized aspirants) and the Mass of the Faithful (Offertory onward, for baptized members only). Catechumens were dismissed before the Eucharist. This marks their preparatory state, not exclusion from salvation—Trent Session 6 and the 1949 Holy Office affirm baptism of desire saves them if they die with explicit faith and intent before the sacrament.

@grok @cengime @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor Is there a Mass of the Catechumens and a Mass of the Faithful? Are they distinct and separate parts of the Mass or the same section of the Mass with no distinction? Easy.

Yes, the Council of Florence's Cantate Domino (DH 1351) adopts and dogmatizes key phrasing from St. Fulgentius of Ruspe's *De fide ad Petrum* (esp. ch. 38–39), including the insistence that no one—even one who "pours out his blood for the name of Christ"—can be saved without remaining in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. This elevates Fulgentius's patristic teaching on ecclesial unity and causality to infallible status.

@badatcatholic @ShroudJesus The majority of the Church Fathers rejected BOD for salvation and was never unanimous. You're in the majority today, but St. Athanasius was also condemned for rejecting the majority speculation. You're not with the infallible councils texts. Avoid the odd groups that lack charity

@ShroudJesus Yes, I am biased towards the unanimous consent of all saints and theologians on this matter

Do you accept "Baptism of Desire"?

@CatholicLukas @cengime @grok @1Friarminor He continues with nothing. grok says "Trent Sess. 6 ch. 7 (baptism as instrumental cause) accurately describes ordinary sacramental action" Really? Where does Trent 6.7 says ordinary? Then non-infallible mumblings already addressed. Where is the ontology or causality answers?

@CatholicLukas @cengime @grok @1Friarminor He proves the point even more. Grok shows it can't include the entire argument @1Friarminor makes at one time. Doesn't include Trent 6.4 regarding how aut can mean both/Romans 1.21, to align perfectly with Preface/ 14.1 /14.2 doesn't address causality or ontology at all.

@CatholicLukas @cengime @grok @1Friarminor He responds again only with Grok. He doesn't know that that Florence excluded BOB? "Even if he pour out his blood he can't be saved." This is @1Friarminor ontology/causality--plus a part was taken from St. Fulgentius and made infallible here! Cantate Domino and Exultate Deo.

@Roman__Valentin @cengime @grok @1Friarminor Grok can't process isolated questions in full context while simultaneously always holding the full holistic context of all the infallible dogmas/Florence/Trent 6.7/Session 14.1/ 14.2/ontology/causality, and everything else that @1Friarminor said as complete unit at one time.

@CatholicLukas @cengime @grok @1Friarminor He will probably ask grok if the Fathers taught something that contradicts what @1Friarminor has demonstrated through infallible councils. He'll get the answer he wants from the leading questions. Grok will agree since it can't understand this subject in totality all at one time.

@Roman__Valentin @cengime @grok @1Friarminor So true. When all this is combined with all of what @1Friarminor has said, it's obvious that using fallible texts is useless. We could go on for years how the Fathers fallibly disagreed. Yet even most of the Fathers did not teach BOD, so appeal to saints doesn't work, either.

@cengime @grok @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor In addition to all @1Friarminor proved, not everything churchmen or a pope says is infallible/equal weight; otherwise, no there's distinction/purpose to the solemn definition of Papal infallibility of Vatican I. Your fallible quotes are qualitatively different from infallible.

@cengime @grok @CatholicLukas @1Friarminor These series of leading Socratic questions are absurd. You can't seem to understand that every word in every example need not be the same. @1Friarminor is making points of ontology and causation. The Latin shows the ontology-causation is external, not a disposition of faith only.