[RJT]

Peter666,

I assume you agree that the Ecumenical Council’s at Trent (the 19th EC) main objective was to express in definitive form some Catholic Doctrine. I am not sure how much of the following you will agree with, though.

When viewing <u>Trent</u>, one cannot ignore the times in which it was convened. (At that time - 1845 to 1563 - people were under-emphasizing the importance of Baptism and in some cases were criticizing the Church for baptizing infants.) We should not ignore the notion that what was in the consciousness of the participants at Trent has a direct impact on words chosen there and how they were chosen. Their mindset has a direct effect on what was explicitly stated and what was not. (Additionally, we keep in mind that they were concerned with our generation as well as their own.)

[An aside for the non-Christian:

The authors of the U. S. Constitution included everything they could foresee (and/or could agree upon at the time) that was necessary to establish rules for our Nation. Yet, they made no provision to bar further amendments.]

This is not a direct analogy, if for no other reason, than because of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in our doctrine. The important thing to keep in mind, Peter, is that the HS’s involvement does not connote totality in <u>Trent</u>. If totality were the case, we would have been able to stop at Nicaea - the 1st Council - and never would have needed <u>Trent</u>.

The main point of all this is to explain that, although, <u>Trent</u> says: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema”; it is important to note that it does not explicitly talk about infants. Sure, infants are included here; but, <u>Trent</u> does not get involved with the “infant debate”.

Since the Church “allows” for Baptism in different forms (as you have already noted); we can leave open the possibility that infants might indeed be baptized prior to death without our human knowledge of it. How this can happen is not important - we can use our imagination. ( Perhaps, science will one day answer such a hypothetical!) Without specific doctrine regarding this issue it is fine to use such words as “hope for Salvation of the infant”.

[ QUOTE ]
I already showed and proved what the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches on the necessity of Baptism for infants,…

[/ QUOTE ]

The above quote of yours might indeed be true. But, you have not shown/proven the New Catechism quote in question is heresy.

RJT

If you cannot see this, then please reconcile for me Augustine’s view of the un - baptized infant with Thomas Aquinas’. (This is a rhetorical challenge, I really have no interest in going further. If you want a final response, I‘ll listen; but I probably won‘t spend much more time on the topic.)