Should a doubtful person receive the sacraments?

[Chestertonian]

Somehow I don't think I want to know how far this rabbit hole goes....

[Non Nobis]

...  And, unlike sins, where it is possible to think you sinned when you actually didn't, it isn't possible to think you are doubting without actually doubting.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches differently than you (below).

(My original response:

You could have a false understanding of doubt: e.g. if you don't (personally) have an answer to a false argument against faith, you might scrupulously think that means you are doubting. If the false argument (or somebody's assertion) has caused the idea of doubting to flitter through your head, you might think you are actually doubting. The temptation to doubt is not the mortal sin of doubt, but may be mistaken for doubt.

If doubt is a sin, it must be willed.  The supernatural gift of the faith, whether it is given to an infant at baptism (without conscious intellectual certitude), or to a convert (with intellectual certitude) is not lost until it is voluntarily denied (or voluntarily unsupported by prayer and necessary care).  Supernatural faith is not in itself identical with the natural sense of absolute certitude.
)

Authoritatively, The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Here is an article (which references the CCC) about when doubting (as it is commonly called) is actually the mortal sin of doubt:

https://www.osv.com/Article/TabId/493/ArtMID/13569/ArticleID/18501/Is-Doubting-a-Sin.aspx

Is Doubting a Sin? Father Ray Ryland, PhD, JD The Catholic Answer
10/20/2015   
Is Doubting a Sin?

Q. At times, I find myself questioning God's existence. During these periods of doubt, I continue to pray daily and attend Sunday Masses. I also brought the subject up during my last confession. I was assured what I had thought was true; that most Christian people have doubts concerning God's existence sometime during their lives.

My question is: When is doubting a serious sin? I understand there are two types, voluntary and involuntary? Can you provide examples of when doubting becomes a mortal sin?

George, via e-mail 

A. Here's a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D:

The distinction you make between two types of doubt is clearly spelled out in the Catechism: "Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief" (No. 2088). This kind of doubt, persistently held, could lead to entirely cutting oneself off from God, and thereby lapsing into mortal sin.

"Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity" (also No. 2088). Evidently your doubts are primarily involuntary. Many helps are available: regular reading of Scripture, daily prayer, adoration before the Blessed Sacrament.

Above all, you must discuss your doubts with God in prayer. Open your heart and mind to Him and tell Him exactly what you're thinking and feeling. Don't let your doubts remain as a vague uneasiness. Hold them up before God and ask Him to resolve them for you. Doubts may arise in circumstances where you cannot engage in prayer at that moment. Don't leave them lurking in the shadows of your mind. Cast them out, with a determination to tell God all about them at the first opportunity.

Daniel, be at peace, unless you are doubting voluntarily!

[Miriam_M]

Yes.  What NN said.

Activating doubts quite deliberately, nourishing doubt, making no attempt to resolve doubts, failing to pray about doubts but allowing them to grow larger and unattended -- that would be the concern.  A certain range of doubt is normal and not sinful.  The Devil plays us for our doubts; we must ignore him and cast him out by saying the name of Jesus.

[Daniel]

Authoritatively, The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

But I'm not asking about sinning against the faith (which presupposes that the sinner already had the faith). My concern is that I may not have ever had the faith to begin with.

The "doubt" I'm referring to is the doubt (the lack of 100% certainty) that everything that the Church teaches is true. Quaremerepulisti says that such a doubt is proof that I don't have the faith. And frankly, what he's saying makes perfect sense. My priest, however, says that this sort of doubt is not proof of lack of faith. He says that so long as I was baptised, then I have the faith, since baptism gives faith. Yet from what I gather, it's the other way around: baptism is not valid unless the recipient has already received the faith prior to baptism. And so, if I did not have the faith as an infant when I received baptism, then my baptism was invalid. However, my priest tells me that I can be assured that my baptism was valid, since I received it in a NO church, because baptisms are hardly ever invalid when performed by priests (even when performed by NO priests).

edit - Another possibility is, maybe I did receive faith as an infant, prior to my baptism, and so maybe I was validly baptised. But at some later point I must have completely lost the faith, because I do not currently know with 100% certainty that everything that the Church teaches is true.

edit - And then there's the possibility that my baptism was valid and that I do have the faith. This is what my priest is saying. Yet this is not possible if what Quaremerepulisti says is correct, since if I had the faith then I would know it.

[Chestertonian]

How are we supposed to determine if an infant has faith?

[Daniel]

How are we supposed to determine if an infant has faith?

I don't know...

[Non Nobis]

How are we supposed to determine if an infant has faith?

I don't know...

If he is baptized he receives SUPERNATURAL FAITH.  That is basic catechism teaching!!

Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

Without supernatural faith when you die, you cannot go to heaven.  But baptized babies go to heaven if they die! Of course they have supernatural faith!

I'll probably have more to say, but this much is basic. Babies most certainly do not need conscious intellectual certainty!

[Lydia Purpuraria]

How are we supposed to determine if an infant has faith?

I don't know...

If he is baptized he receives SUPERNATURAL FAITH.  That is basic catechism teaching!!

Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

Without supernatural faith when you die, you cannot go to heaven.  But baptized babies go to heaven if they die! Of course they have supernatural faith!

I'll probably have more to say, but this much is basic. Babies most certainly do not need intellectual certainty!

Yes.  If I recall correctly, not until the age of reason can the faith be (potentially) lost. Up until that point, the faith is "supplied" to/for a baptized child.

[Non Nobis]

... it's the other way around: baptism is not valid unless the recipient has already received the faith prior to baptism. And so, if I did not have the faith as an infant when I received baptism, then my baptism was invalid.

And yet AGAIN, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Faith and Baptism

1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

Some of the things Quaremerepulisti says are confusing you, Daniel.  Do you see that?

[Daniel]

I notice that the Catechism makes a distinction between "perfect and mature faith" and a "beginning" of faith. But, what does that even mean? You either have the faith or you don't. If you have faith then your faith can be strengthened (by baptism, etc.), but you must have faith first. As far as I know, the Church does not teach that baptism outright gives faith to those who receive baptism without faith.

I'm not saying that the infant needs to be aware of the fact that he has faith (and intellectual certainty), but, as far as I know, he still must have faith for the sacrament to be valid. Unless the sacrament works differently on persons below the age of reason as it does for persons who have reached the age of reason.
edit - Or, maybe the sacrament is valid but not efficate? I really don't know how this works...

[Non Nobis]

How are we supposed to determine if an infant has faith?

I don't know...

If he is baptized he receives SUPERNATURAL FAITH.  That is basic catechism teaching!!

Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

Without supernatural faith when you die, you cannot go to heaven.  But baptized babies go to heaven if they die! Of course they have supernatural faith!

I'll probably have more to say, but this much is basic. Babies most certainly do not need intellectual certainty!

Yes.  If I recall correctly, not until the age of reason can the faith be (potentially) lost. Up until that point, the faith is "supplied" to/for a baptized child.

The way I understand this is that BEFORE the child is baptized, the necessary preliminary faith that is not yet mature is supplied by the godparents (and the Church), but WHEN the child is baptized he HIMSELF receives the Supernatural Virtue of Faith (it must be there if Sanctifying Grace is there). Later his Faith becomes more explicit.

Contrary to Quaremerepulisti, involuntary intellectual doubts (or the child's not knowing his faith, through no fault of his own) do not destroy Supernatural Faith, or prove that you did not have it in the first place.

I can't answer everything Q says (what's new?), but this much I think is true.  See my previous posts.

[Gardener]

Authoritatively, The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

But I'm not asking about sinning against the faith (which presupposes that the sinner already had the faith). My concern is that I may not have ever had the faith to begin with.

The "doubt" I'm referring to is the doubt (the lack of 100% certainty) that everything that the Church teaches is true. Quaremerepulisti says that such a doubt is proof that I don't have the faith. And frankly, what he's saying makes perfect sense. My priest, however, says that this sort of doubt is not proof of lack of faith. He says that so long as I was baptised, then I have the faith, since baptism gives faith. Yet from what I gather, it's the other way around: baptism is not valid unless the recipient has already received the faith prior to baptism. And so, if I did not have the faith as an infant when I received baptism, then my baptism was invalid. However, my priest tells me that I can be assured that my baptism was valid, since I received it in a NO church, because baptisms are hardly ever invalid when performed by priests (even when performed by NO priests).

edit - Another possibility is, maybe I did receive faith as an infant, prior to my baptism, and so maybe I was validly baptised. But at some later point I must have completely lost the faith, because I do not currently know with 100% certainty that everything that the Church teaches is true.

edit - And then there's the possibility that my baptism was valid and that I do have the faith. This is what my priest is saying. Yet this is not possible if what Quaremerepulisti says is correct, since if I had the faith then I would know it.

It is not ordinarily the case that an infant should receive faith prior to Baptism. God could certainly do so, but it would be extraordinary. That's the point of Baptism: to give grace, including the Faith. The sponsors' w/ their words acted on your behalf.

I wrote an entire post on this subject which you even thanked... do you not recall?

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=18432.msg410007#msg410007

I honestly wonder if you are confusing faith with knowledge (science, as St. Thomas referred to it).

Additionally, you exhibit classic symptoms of scruples. If I had to put you on my forum leather couch, I'd psychobabble you and say that even your idea about becoming a theologian (in another thread) was not so much about being closer to God, but about getting answers -- the need to KNOW, rather than believe -- which is a classic symptom of the scrupulous. What this means is that you are literally tormented with doubts in your mind -- was this a sin, do I have the Faith, if I receive in mortal sin it's sacrilege, but if I don't receive I'm in disobedience because my priest said to do so, etc. But recall, Daniel, that thoughts like these can be temptations from the diabolical and are not willed. Non Nobis and Miriam M have addressed the idea of voluntary vs involuntary doubts, so I won't rehash what they have already explained quite well.

None of this is surprising to me because my wife is scrupulous. We have talked about what it's like since before we were married. I've read a ton on it from spiritual writers. NONE say listen to folks who go against the advice of your priest -- the opposite in fact.

Good rhetoric, as iron clad as it may seem, is no match for the grace of office -- especially when the one speaking from an office (priest) is in agreement with 2000 years of Church teaching and countless spiritual writers, including Doctors of the Church.

Did you ever look into Light and Peace by Fr. R.P. Quadrupani? If so, did you read it and meditate on it? It's simply a synthesis of the teachings of St. Francis de Sales, a wondrous saint who himself, for a time early on, struggled with despair over the question of Predestination (and it was he who discouraged the pope from choosing either the Molinists or the so-called Thomists from the Banezian school).

Here's a copyright-free edition you can read for free online: https://archive.org/details/lightpeace00quad

I plan to reply to one of Quaremerepulisti's posts later, but I have to get on to some other things.

[Chestertonian]

maybe i'm just ignorant, but if faith is believing what is unseen, and belief requires intellectual understanding of at least WHAT truth you believe).  I know a lot is going on in the developing infant's little mind, but I have a difficult time imagining what an infant's "supernatural faith" would involve.

Also, how is it that you receive faith at baptism when the adult convert asks for baptism specifically because their faith has led them to arriveat the conclusion that baptism is necessary.

I've also met many people who were baptized Catholic (in my wife's case, it was to make Nonna happy) but never went to mass or believed Catholic teachings until later in life.  My wife claims that she went to CCD a few times as a child to have First Communion but no one talked about the Real Presence, and she didn't know that this is what the Church taught until significantly later.  How can someone have received "supernatural faith" from baptism if they grow up without a clue about the Catholic faith and don't understand it until someone evangelizes to them?

[Daniel]

Good rhetoric, as iron clad as it may seem, is no match for the grace of office -- especially when the one speaking from an office (priest) is in agreement with 2000 years of Church teaching and countless spiritual writers, including Doctors of the Church.

That's correct if the priest is correct. But the Church does not guarantee that he is correct. And suppose he's not. If I don't have the faith, and I do the sorts of things he's telling me to do, then I commit sacrilege. But my priest has no right to tell me to commit sacrilege. And I have no right to go along with any of it.

Did you ever look into Light and Peace by Fr. R.P. Quadrupani? If so, did you read it and meditate on it? It's simply a synthesis of the teachings of St. Francis de Sales, a wondrous saint who himself, for a time early on, struggled with despair over the question of Predestination (and it was he who discouraged the pope from choosing either the Molinists or the so-called Thomists from the Banezian school).

I started looking at it, but then I stopped, because Fr. Quadrupani and/or St. Francis de Sales was saying some questionable things (stuff that seems inconsistent with Church teaching). I was going to ask my priest about it, but if I can't trust my priest then I can't trust my priest. Maybe I'll go back and reread it, and see if I can figure it out on my own.

maybe i'm just ignorant, but if faith is believing what is unseen, and belief requires intellectual understanding of at least WHAT truth you believe).  I know a lot is going on in the developing infant's little mind, but I have a difficult time imagining what an infant's "supernatural faith" would involve.
[. . .]
I've also met many people who were baptized Catholic (in my wife's case, it was to make Nonna happy) but never went to mass or believed Catholic teachings until later in life.  My wife claims that she went to CCD a few times as a child to have First Communion but no one talked about the Real Presence, and she didn't know that this is what the Church taught until significantly later.  How can someone have received "supernatural faith" from baptism if they grow up without a clue about the Catholic faith and don't understand it until someone evangelizes to them?

From what I've read of the Summa and QMR's posts,
- Knowledge is the stuff a person knows.
- Faith is a means (albeit not the only means) by which a person knows stuff.
A person can have faith and simultaneously lack knowledge (e.g. a child who has faith but who doesn't know a single teaching), or he can have knowledge while lacking faith (e.g. some guy who knows what the Church teaches, and perhaps even thinks that all these teachings are true, yet who nevertheless is not 100% certain that all these things are true).
The latter cannot be saved, since that would be a kind of Pelagianism. However, if such a man were to live a good life, and if he had lived a good life ever since he had reached the age of reason, then God will surely give him the faith at some point before he dies. And once he has the faith, he can seek baptism and perhaps be saved. But if he seeks baptism before he receives the faith, then [I don't know what happens].

Also, how is it that you receive faith at baptism when the adult convert asks for baptism specifically because their faith has led them to arriveat the conclusion that baptism is necessary.

My question exactly.

[Gardener]

The Church cannot guarantee any individual priest is correct on any particular topic -- true. However, the advice of a priest in concert with Church teaching and bolstered and elucidated by Saints, who all agree, is authoritative.

A good argument is not authoritative of itself, and contra all the aforementioned authorities, when it contradicts those authorities in the same.

Fr. Quadrupani's book is, at this point, over 200 years old. Originally written in 1795, it has gone through innumerable editions, all receiving imprimaturs in multiple languages. St. Francis de Sales is a Doctor of the Church. He singlehandedly flipped his Diocese from something like 99% Calvinist to 99% Catholic. He is a renowned and celebrated spiritual and theological writer, lauded by everyone from various Popes to Bishops, Priests, and Laymen.

If you want to put either of those mens' credentials against QMR playing into your fears with convoluted arguments you don't even fully grasp, then you're too much of an idiot to go against the faith and actually have no sin due to mental defect. Since you seem to not have that be the case (since you aren't an idiot and are not mentally defective insofar as inability to engage in reason, I can only conclude that you are awed by the strength of his arguments as they play with your scruples, rather than by the truth of them.

You continue to trust yourself and your own understanding, when yet you yourself admit you have issues with understanding. That's patently absurd. The goal is not at this point in time to grapple with "figuring it out on your own", but to simply engage in a docile spirit and embrace it, accept it, and live it out in obedience.

St. Alphonsus Liguori's writings on scruples, obedience, etc., line up with St. Francis de Sales and Fr. Quadrupani's.

And look at what the Church has said about St. Alphonsus:

(Papal approval) "No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their admiration of his prudent doctrine. (...) In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him – simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so. Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the 'Moral Theology' of the Patron of confessors. In his Apostolic Brief of April 26, 1950, Pope Pius XII alludes to some of them. «By his learned writings, especially his 'Moral Theology,' he dissipated the darkness of error with which Jansenists and unbelievers have cloaked the world» (Pius IX). He was «the most illustrious and benign of moralists» (Leo XIII). «He illumined obscurity, made doubts plain and clear, and in the maze of over-strict and over-lax theological opinions, he hewed a path which directors of souls can tread in safety» (Pius IX). To this chorus of pontifical voices, Pope Pius XII felt, he said, constrained to add his own, declaring St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori the celestial Patron of both confessors and moral theologians.

http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html

And yet, what does he relay on the issue of scruples (of which your "crisis of faith" is merely a symptom)?

OBEDIENCE

Here's a good read from a work of St. Alphonsus... guess who it mentions? St. Francis de Sales...

The words are taken from 'The Way of Salvation and Perfection,' (pp.451–460; Ch VI. Interior Trials):

"... the chief thing they [scrupulous souls] ought to consider is this: that he who acts in obedience to a learned and pious confessor, acts not only with no doubt, but with the greatest security that can be had upon earth, on the divine words of Jesus Christ, that he who hears his ministers is as though he heard himself: He that heareth you heareth Me; whence St. Bernard says, "Whatever man enjoins in the place of God, provided it be not certainly displeasing to God, is altogether to be received as though enjoined by God." It is certain that, as to the personal direction of conscience, the confessor is the lawful superior, as St Francis de Sales, with all spiritual instructors, declares, while F. Pinamonti, in his Spiritual Director, says: "It is well to make the scrupulous perceive, that submitting their will to the ministers of the Lord provides them the greatest security in all that is not manifestly sin. Let them read the lives of the saints, and they will find that they know no safer road than obedience. The saints plainly trusted more to the voice of their confessor than to the immediate voice of God; and yet the scrupulous would lean more on their own judgment than on the Gospel, which assures them, He that heareth you heareth Me."

The Blessed Henry Suso says, that "God demands no account from us of things done under obedience." St. Philip Neri says the same: "Let such as desire to advance in the way of God submit themselves to a learned confessor, and obey him in God's stead; let him who thus acts assure himself that he will have to render no account to God for his actions." He says, moreover, that one should have all faith in one's confessor, on the ground that God would not permit him to err; and that there is nothing that more surely cuts asunder the snares of the devil than to do the will of another in what is good, nor anything more full of danger than to be guiding ourselves according to what seems best to us; which is confirmed by St. John of the Cross, who says, in the name of the Lord: "When thou art unfaithful to confessors, thou art so unto Me, who have said, He that despiseth you despiseth Me." And again: "Not to rest satisfied with what the confessor says is pride and failure in faith." We are, therefore, to have this certain confidence, that each person, in obeying his spiritual Father, may be sure of not sinning. "The sovereign remedy for the scrupulous," says St. Bernard, "is a blind obedience to their confessor." John Gerson relates, that the same St. Bernard told one of his disciples, who was scrupulous, to go and celebrate, and take his word for it. He went, and was cured of his scruples.

"But a person may answer," says Gerson, "Would to God I had a St. Bernard for my director! but mine is one of indifferent wisdom." And he answers, "Thou dost err, whoever thou art that so speakest; for thou hast not given thyself into the hands of the man because he is well read, etc., but because he is placed over thee; wherefore obey him not as man, but as God." For this reason St. Teresa well said, "Let the soul accept the confessor with a determination to think no more of personal excuses, but to trust in the words of the Lord, He that heareth you heareth Me. The Lord so highly values this submission, that when, in spite of a thousand inward conflicts, and considering the decision to be an absurd one, we execute it nevertheless, cost us what it may, the Lord so assists us," etc.; and she goes on to say, that we then comply with his divine will. Hence St. Francis de Sales, speaking of direction from a spiritual Father in order to walk securely in the way of God, says, "This is the very counsel of all counsels." "Search as much as you will," says the devout Avila, "you will in no way discover the will of God so surely as by the path of that humble obedience which is so much recommended and practised by the devout of former times." Thus, too, Alvarez said, "Even if the spiritual Father should err, the obedient soul is secure from error, because it rests on the judgment of him whom God has given it as a superior." And F. Nieremberg writes to the same effect: "Let the soul obey the confessor; and then, although the thing itself were matter of fault, he does not sin who does it with the intention of obeying him who holds to him the place of God, persuading himself (as is, indeed, the case) that he is bound to obey him;" forasmuch as (according to the words of F. Rogacci and F. Lessius) the confessor is to us the interpreter of the divine will. And this is confirmed also by the gloss: "But if what is prescribed be of a doubtful kind, the virtue of obedience exempts from sin, although the thing in itself be evil;" and in the chapter Inquisition de Sent, exc., from the same text, obedience to the confessor is enjoined, when it says that scruples "ought to be dismissed at the judgment of one's pastor."

St. Francis de Sales gives three maxims of great consolation to the scrupulous: "An obedient soul has never been lost; 2. We ought to rest satisfied with knowing from our spiritual Father that we are going on well, without seeking a personal knowledge of it; 3. The best thing is to walk on blindly through all the darkness and perplexity of this life, under the providence of God."

And therefore all the doctors of morals conclude, in general, with St. Antoninus, Navarro, Silvester, etc., that obedience to the confessor is the safest rule for walking well in the ways of God. F. Tirillo and F. La Croix say that this is the common doctrine of the holy Fathers and masters of the spiritual life. In the second place, the scrupulous should know, not only that they are safe in obeying, but that they are bound to obey their director, and to despise the scruple, acting with all freedom in the midst of their doubts. This is the teaching of Natalis Alexander: "That scruples ought to be despised when one has the judgment of a prudent, pious, and learned director; and that one ought to act against them is plain from the chapter Inquisitioni," etc., as above; and of Father Wigandt: "He who acts against scruples does not sin; nay, sometimes it is a precept to do so, especially when backed by the judgment of the confessor. So do these authors speak, although they belong to the rigid school; so, too, the doctors in general; and the reason is, that if the scrupulous man lives in his scruples, he is in danger of placing grievous impediments in the way of satisfying his obligations, or, at least, of making any spiritual progress; and, moreover, of going out of his mind, losing his health, and destroying his conscience by despair or by relaxation.

Hence St. Antoninus agrees with Gerson in thus reproving the scrupulous, who, through a vain fear, is not obedient in overcoming his scruples: "Beware lest, from overmuch desire to walk securely, thou fall and destroy thyself." For this reason F. Wigandt also says, that the scrupulous man ought to obey his director in all cases where the precept is not plainly sin, "unless the director enjoins what is manifestly against God;" and it is the general and undoubted decision among Doctors, that in things doubtful each one is bound to obey him who is placed over him, if it be not evidently a sin. This is proved by St. Bernard in a passage quoted at the commencement; and by St. Ignatius Loyola, who says: "There must be obedience in all things in which no sin is perceived, that is, in which there is not manifest sin." Also by Blessed Humbert, General of the Friars Preachers, who says: "Unless the precept be plainly evil, it is to be received as though enjoined by God." Moreover, by Blessed Denis the Carthusian: "In things doubtful as to whether or not they are against the divine precept, one must stand by the precept of him who is set over one; because, although it should be against the precept of God, yet, in virtue of obedience, the person under direction sins not." Of the same opinion is St. Bonaventure. This makes Gerson say: "The scrupulous are to act against their scruples, and plant their feet firmly in resisting them. We cannot set scruples to rest better than by despising them; and, as a general rule, not without the advice of another, and especially our Superior. Otherwise, either ill–regulated fear or inconsiderate presumption will be our fall." "With a firm foot," says he, "they ought to overcome the scruple."

And so the remedy that St. Philip Neri gave the scrupulous was, to make them despise their scruples. It is thus written in his life: "Moreover, besides the general remedy of committing one's self altogether and for everything to the judgment of the confessor, he gave another, by exhorting his penitents to despise their scruples. Hence he forbade such persons to confess often; and when, in confession, they entered upon their scruples, he used to send them to Communion without hearing them." So, then, in conclusion, the scrupulous man ought to set before himself obedience, and look upon his scrupulous fear as vain, and so act with freedom. Nor does this require (say the Doctors Busembaum, with Sanchez and others) that in each particular act he should expressly determine that the thing is a scruple, and that he ought to obey his confessor in despising it; it is enough that he act against it in virtue of a judgment made beforehand, since, from his past experience, the same judgment resides in his conscience habitually or virtually, though dim and confused. Hence La Croix and Tamburini, together with Vasquez, Val., etc., add, that if he who is scrupulous be unable amid that darkness to lay aside his scruple at once, or call clearly to mind the obedience laid on him by the confessor, which some anxious consciences are disabled from doing, perplexed as they are how to put by their scruple, by reason of the fear that weighs upon them, in that case he does not sin, though he act with a positive fear of sinning; and for this reason that as he has already passed a like judgment upon former scruples, and on the duty of obeying the injunction given him to despise them, he ought assuredly to believe himself to possess it now also, though, from the force of his fear, he does not perceive it.

But the scrupulous ought at such a time to despise the fear, inasmuch as it forms no true verdict of conscience. Hear how Gerson openly confirms this point, and what advice he gives: "A formed conscience is, when, after discussion and deliberation, a definite sentence of the reason judges that a thing is to be done or to be avoided; and to act against this is a sin: but fear or scruple of conscience is, when the mind wavers in doubt, not knowing which of two things it is bound to do, and yet would not omit whatever it could ascertain to be agreeable to the divine will; and this fear is as much as possible to be cast away and quenched." In fact, then, Gerson says that a person sins by acting under a practical doubt, when the doubt proceeds from a formed conscience; but that this formed conscience exists when, after examining the circumstances, he deliberately judges with a definitive sentence on what he is obliged and what he is forbidden to do; and he sins by acting against such a conscience as this. But that, when the mind is doubtful and wavering, and yet would not do anything that was displeasing to God, this, says Gerson, is no true doubtfulness, but a vain fear, which ought as much as possible to be cast away and despised. So that when there certainly exists in the scrupulous person the habitual will not to offend God, it is certain (according to Gerson) that while he acts in his doubtfulness he does not sin; and with reason, since it is then not a true doubt, although he may apprehend it to be a doubt, but a vain fear.

On the other hand, it is certain, that for the commission of a mortal sin there is required a full perception on the part of the reason, and a complete deliberate consent on the part of the will, and to will something which grievously offends God. This doctrine is undoubted, and common to all the theologians, and even to the most rigid, as Juenin, Habert, and that most rigorous of all, Genet, who speaks thus: "But if (the act) contain only an imperfect degree of deliberation, the sin will be venial, not mortal." And this, too, is the teaching of all the rest, with St. Thomas, who says: "That which is mortal may be venial, owing to the act being imperfect, since it does not absolutely amount to the perfection of a mortal act, being not deliberate, but sudden."

Let scrupulous souls, then, suffer this cross of theirs with resignation, and not perplex themselves in the greatest distresses which God may send or permit. It is for their profit, to the end that they may be humbler, may guard better against such occasions as are beyond doubt and seriously dangerous, may commend themselves oftener to the Lord, and put a more entire trust in the divine goodness. Meanwhile let them often have recourse to the most holy Virgin Mary, who is called, and is in truth, the Mother of Mercy, and comforter of the afflicted. Let them, indeed, fear to offend God, wherever they do in truth discern what will offend him; but if only they are steadfast in resolving rather to die a thousand times than lose the grace of God, let them, above all things, fear lest they fail in obedience to their directors. On the other hand, while they blindly obey, they may assure themselves of not being abandoned by that Lord who will have all men saved, and who, loving good–will as he does, never suffers a really obedient soul to perish.

No one hath hoped in the Lord, and hath been confounded. Casting all your care upon Him, for He hath care of you. The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? In peace in the self-same I will sleep and I will rest; for Thou, O Lord, singularly hast settled me in hope. In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped; let me never be confounded."

https://littlestsouls.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/consolation-for-scrupulous-souls-some-advice-from-st-alphonsus/

St. Francis de Sales, St. Phillip Neri, multiple Doctors, Spiritual writers, etc... QMR is a dude on the internet and is no saint, moral theologian, spiritual writer accepted by the Church, etc. He's presenting arguments with no demonstrable support from a cross section of accepted writers. He's just giving a good argument, but in matters like this, that's not enough. Heck, at least the Devil quoted Scripture when he tried to parlay w/ Christ in the desert.

As to your last point, St. Thomas teaches:

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 2; III:68:2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm#article4

In other words, the pre-Baptismal faith a person might have is enough to get them to Baptism, but post-Baptismal grace and virtues are of a greater quantity (and one might even argue of a greater quality).