How will judgement be different for a Catholic vs. an Orthodox?

[Ascanio1]

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. The Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent are Infallible.

Thank you for correcting me.

I read somewhere that some councils's acts, including the Acts of the Council of Trento, were elevated to infallibile status, as a whole, not only specific teachings. Could you, kindly, correct me if I am wrong and help me better understand if this was ever the case?

The Kingship of Christ solves this problem.  Thank you for your insight.

It is not my insight. It was suggested by a member of another forum. I am a mere student (and still very ingnorant at that). I recently re-verted to Catholicism and so I am still studying catechism and Catholic theology, every day. I feel like a 14 year old studying for Confirmation... 

I asked about EENS in another forum and the thread became very interesting (and heated).

Members debated at length and, finally, a more educated member posted documents of three separate, infallible and immutable teachings. These were centuries old and all three, explicitly, excluded (and one went as far as declaring anathema) any baptism without water.

The same case that you cite, the now famous thief, was explained as possible in absence of water only due to conditions of emergency.

For example, if an airplane is doomed and a passenger (able and willing) intends to convert, with proper intention, then any Catholic passenger in state of Grace can baptize him, even without water. I cannot remember the specific formula that has to be pronounced.

Again, since three dogmatic teachings confirmed, infallibly and immutably, that without Baptism with water, Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus, then any other form of proposed salvation (baptism of desire) is a heresy.

From what I recall (I may well be inaccurate), these three dogmatic teachings were part of Mons + Lefebrve's reasons for refusing ecumenistic concessions and why Mons + Lefevbre insisted that even Orthodox would have to convert to be saved.

From what I recall of this theory, Salvation does not depend on the individual's good will, piety, charity, etc. but on Jesus. In other words, God does not offer Salvation in a humane perspective but in a Theocentric one. Unless an individual freely and properly converts to serve the True God, that individual cannot be saved. God created us "to serve Him", not the other way around and this negates any possibility that individuals who serve other Gods, albeit charitably, devoutly, etc., can be saved.

The issue that remained somewhat (*) open to debate was how (what liturgy) the Sacrament of Baptism should be administered. Could it be administered without water? Two dogmatic teachings expressly negate this possibility and mention, expressly, water. But some members of that forum suggested that in extreme circumstances of emergency, the liturgy could omit water and they cite the thief on Calvary. But Baptism of desire... that remains a big NO, NO !

I am very sensitive to this topic as my wife is Orthodox.

(*) I say somewhat because not everyone concurred.

[Gardener]

Baptism (with water) can be done by anyone in an extraordinary sense. Even a pagan can validly baptize so long as they use the proper form, matter, and intention. It does not absolutely take a Catholic to do it.

There is no Sacrament of Baptism without water. Sacraments do not depend on the state of grace for the minister of the Sacrament. But lack of the Sacrament of Baptism does not absolutely equal lack of justification (even Feeney taught this). However, what Feeney did teach is the implicit damnation of those who die justified but without the Sacrament of Baptism. 

Regarding The Good Thief (St. Dismas), the Feeneyites will claim (I have seen all of these):

Was either 1) baptized miraculously or 2) was not subject to Baptism until he was in the Bosom of Abraham, where Christ Baptized, having died under the Old Law 3) Was already a disciple and baptized.

However, #2 is problematic since the verse Feeneyites use (Jesus talking to Nicodemus) was said in the context of the Old Law. #3 is pure conjecture, since there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition about that (they'd scream and jump to bring it up were there). #1 is fine, but it simply pounds the table on the argument and is tautological (since it uses its own point to prove itself).

The reality is, St. Dismas was given grace and responded positively. What that looked like from God's eye, only God knows.

[crossingtherubicon]

Another aspect of this situation that I do not see often discussed, is the "err on the side of caution" variable.  Can the Church "err on the side of caution"?  It is well thought that the Church can err on the side of caution, if something is a mortal sin 90% of the time, and a venial sin 10% of the time, the Church cannot reasonably be expected to figure out the 10% of cases that it would be a venial sin, nor is it even possible to figure out that 10%, so they must say the something is 100% a mortal sin, hence they are erring, but on the side of caution.  But Baptism requirement, is not an err on the side of caution, Jesus did not ever err on the side of caution, because he is God, he had access to the fractional data, where the Church does not necessarily have access, so in John Chapter 3 when "Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit", you can take it to the bank, baptism by water is absolutely necessary to be saved, but Christ can potentially baptize anyone he please, before their soul leaves their body.

[Gardener]

If only all those popes, saints, and doctors of the Church, who are quoted in the below link, had a low level Jesuit who was an English teacher to correct their misunderstanding.

http://baptismofdesire.com/

Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Robert Bellarmine, etc.

Here's a collective image of them in Heaven once ol' Leonard came along:

[crossingtherubicon]

Baptism of desire = Jesus Christ, the High Priest, performed the baptism.
Therefore I guess it was inside the purview of the Institution, to come up with the idea, to explain something happening that was outside their authority, and jurisdiction, yet the one performing the something has authority and jurisdiction over them.  Therefore John Chapter 3 holds, imo, there is no such thing as Baptism by desire, there is Baptism under the authority of the Institution (which includes extraordinary baptisms), and there is Baptism directly from the High Priest. 

[crossingtherubicon]

21 Seeing him, Peter said to Jesus, 'What about him, Lord?'
22 Jesus answered, 'If I want him to stay behind till I come, what does it matter to you? You are to follow me.'
23 The rumour then went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus had not said to Peter, 'He will not die,' but, 'If I want him to stay behind till I come.'
Sometimes one has to wonder, did we forget who the Rightful King and High Priest is?

[lauermar]

There are many more theological differences between the Orthodox church and Catholic church than you realize. Some of these differences are vast. The more you look into it, the greater the chasm. Dr. Taylor Marshall had an ex-Orthodox on his Youtube channel. Check it out.

[Ascanio1]

There are many more theological differences between the Orthodox church and Catholic church than you realize. Some of these differences are vast. The more you look into it, the greater the chasm. Dr. Taylor Marshall had an ex-Orthodox on his Youtube channel. Check it out.

Thank you for pointing this out. Is this the video? There are a few that discuss the Orthodox Church.

[crossingtherubicon]

There are many more theological differences between the Orthodox church and Catholic church than you realize. Some of these differences are vast. The more you look into it, the greater the chasm. Dr. Taylor Marshall had an ex-Orthodox on his Youtube channel. Check it out.

yes i listed to that a week or so ago, excellent video
orthodox is risky