Transcript

In many ways, I hesitate to make this video.

I hesitate in the same way that you hesitate to contradict the lies of a habitual liar, or to correct the delusions of a madman.

No matter what you say, no matter how much evidence you bring forward, there is always an escape in their mind.

Truly, someone willing to believe or to speak absurdity is hardly convinced by anything.

One such example is Jean-Luc.

I don't really know much about Jean-Luc, if you believe it or not.

I actually don't watch many YouTube videos unless it is for the purpose of video-making.

But he came out with one of the most absurd theological claims that I've ever heard.

This is the claim that the Catholic Church, before Vatican II, taught that baptism did not give grace to anyone outside of the Roman communion.

Right?

Remember, Vatican II says, okay, by baptism there's a sacramental bond such that all that have been justified in baptism are united together and it cites evidence of baptism's efficacy after talking about the justification in baptism by the life of worship of ecclesial communities.

Right?

People who don't even have apostolic succession or, by Rome's lights, don't have a proper Eucharist, and yet it says, yeah, baptismal grace is operative there.

Now, again, you might have someone like Christian Wagner say, "Oh.

Well, Jean's basically accusing Rome of Donatism." No.

Of course not.

I agree Rome would've viewed those baptisms as valid.

That's not the issue.

Right?

We know that impediments can block the efficacy of a valid baptism, and being a heretic was one of them, per Co- Council of Florence, per here as well.

So the cases that invincible ignorance historically applied to were very small.

To my knowledge, not even the most extreme Feenites teach this, as is evident from their comments on baptized infants of heretics and schismatics.

His confirmation of this thesis, which is contrary to any author who has written on this topic, is also bad.

He thinks that it is a good argument to point the Hussites, saying that we would never approve of a crusade against a heretical group whose sacraments give grace.

It seems that Jean-Luc has seemed to forget the fact we historically had anti-apostate and anti-heresy laws as well that were applied against those who were baptized Roman Catholics as children.

I guess, for some reason, the sacraments of those children were not fruitful because eventually they were punished for their crimes of heresy or apostasy.

The conclusion simply does not follow.

I was going to stop there, but we can look at how poor this line of argumentation is from another line of thought.

He concedes that we always thought that schismatic baptisms were valid, just not efficacious.

His argument from the Hussites is basically that we would never kill those who have a special relationship to Christ by their baptisms.

What is so juvenile about this argumentation is that he thinks that it is only sacramental grace that gives someone a special relationship to Christ.

He has exposed that he does not even know what a valid baptism is in the first place.

A valid baptism gives the sacramental character the indelible mark.

Has Jean ever asked himself what the character even is?

Does he even know?

If he did, he would not say something so outrageous as to distinguish between a merely valid baptism, which does not give a unique relationship to Christ, and one which gives grace and therefore does.

As St. Thomas teaches, quote, "Each of the faithful is deputed to receive or to bestow on others things pertaining to the worship of God, and this, properly speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character.

Now, the whole rite of the Christian religion is derived from Christ's priesthood.

Consequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is especially the character of Christ, to whose priesthood the faithful are likened by reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than certain participations of Christ's priesthood, flown from Christ Himself." End quote.

This isn't some sort of esoteric information.

Catechumens literally learn this when entering the Church during OCIA.

As the CCC says, quote, "Incorporated into Christ by baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ.

Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark, character of his belonging to Christ.

No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.

Given once for all, baptism cannot be repeated." End quote.

In fact, this is even in the Compendium of the Catechism, which is an even more basic introduction to Catholicism.

It states, quote, "It is a spiritual seal bestowed by the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders.

It is a promise and guarantee of divine protection.

By virtue of this seal, the Christian is configured to Christ, participates in a variety of ways in His priesthood and takes his parts in the Church according to the different states and functions.

He is therefore set apart for divine worship and the service of the Church.

Because this character is an indelible one, the sacraments that impress it on the soul are received only once in life." End quote.

Beside this, baptism makes one a subject of the Church.

This is clear from the condemnation of Erasmus's position at Trent and the common distinction of theologians between members and subjects of the Church.

Thus, the entire assumption of his line of argumentation is false.

Not only does a fruitful baptism give some sort of special relation to Christ, a merely valid one does as well.

Yet enough of that.

Let's actually get to the meat of the question.

First, it is not per se wrong to distinguish between four types of receiving the sacrament.

First, you have the reception of the effect of the sacrament without a reception of the sacrament itself....

which is called by St. Thomas those, quote, "who do not receive the sacrament, but do receive the reality of the sacraments." This would be those who receive the baptism of blood or desire.

Secondly, you have the reception of both the effects of the sacrament and the sacrament itself, which would be called a fruitful reception of the sacrament.

Third, you have the reception of the sacramental character without the reception of the sacramental grace, which is a merely valid sacrament, which St. Thomas calls those, quote, "Who receive the sacraments and not the reality of the sacrament." End quote.

Fourth, you have those who merely receive a simulation of the sacrament, neither receiving it validly or fruitfully.

So Sean claims that for any baptism outside the church, it is, in pre-Vatican II thought, a sacrament that is valid, but not fruitful.

It is an instance of the third type of baptism.

Now, what is so absurd about this is that theological textbooks in the pre-conciliar era, that is before the era of Vatican II, had entire thesis, entire chapters teaching that there was the working of sacramental grace outside of the juridical bounds of the Roman Catholic Church.

There were entire journal articles and entire monographs written on the topic of good faith heretics and schismatics.

If I wanted to quote those authors, this video would be dozens of hours long because of the truly massive number of authors that teach the supposed novelty of Vatican II on this point.

In fact, the claim of Sean Luke is so absurd that I cannot think of a single author who doesn't teach this point.

If you want to read a good treatment of this question from an author who was very involved in the First Vatican Council, you can read Cardinal Franzön's De Ecclesia Christi, Thesis 23, which I will give a few quotes from below.

But I'm one who's up for a challenge.

So since I already hear the inevitable shifting of the goalposts, as frequently happens when I point to authors teaching the supposed novelties of Vatican II, decades or centuries before the council in a clear and manifest way, I wish to mostly restrict myself to medieval authors and magisterial documents, favoring my patron, St. Thomas Aquinas.

First, according to the medieval authors, without restriction, infants who received baptism received both the grace and character of baptism due to their lack of indisposition to baptism.

Therefore, they affirmed that sacraments give grace outside of the physical bounds of the church, which is exactly what Sean Luke denies.

First, the teaching of the Angelic Doctor.

In the first place, he writes, quote, "Baptismal grace in infancy is not opposed to anything but original sin, but one child does not have more original sin than another.

Therefore, neither does one receive greater grace than another." End quote.

When St. Thomas is speaking of, quote, "Not opposed to anything," he is contrasting the deliberate opposition of adults with the fact that since they are below the age of reason, infants cannot give any opposition.

The same reasoning would apply to both heretical and non-heretical children of whatever state.

In the second place, St. Thomas writes, quote, "I answer that baptism, in anyone who does not receive it insincerely, universally removes any guilt infecting the person that it finds, as has been said, etc." End quote.

Now, it is clear that an infant cannot receive baptism insincerely since they do not perform any moral acts since they are below the age of reason.

Therefore, etc. In the third place, he writes, quote, "It should be said that for the baptism of infants, nothing is required on their part, but for a disposition to salvation, they have, as it were, the faith of the church, and for the bringing about of salvation, the power of Christ's passion, which is at work in baptism.

And these two things are equally related to infants, and thus they do not differ in receiving the effect of baptism, but all receive equal grace." End quote.

This clearly teaches the thesis.

In the fourth place, he literally titles a section, quote, "About Infants and Others Lacking the Use of Reason Who Everyone Agrees Do Receive the Sacrament and the Reality of the Sacrament." End quote.

Remember, those who receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament are those who receive both validly and fruitfully.

And this is something which he says that everyone agrees upon.

How much clearer could we get?

In the fifth place, commenting on the place where Lombard says, quote, "All children who in baptism are cleansed from original sin receive both the sacrament and the reality." End quote.

He writes, quote, "Not only little ones, but also sometimes adults.

Nevertheless, with infants there is no doubt that they receive it.

There is, however, with adults, for they can impede it by insincerity." End quote.

In the sixth place, he writes, quote, "It should be said that in baptism, a baptized person receives two things, namely the sacrament and the reality behind the sacrament.

But to receive these two things, nothing is required on the part of the one receiving baptism that would cause them, but only on the removal of the impediment, which is nothing other than the will contrary to one of the things mentioned.

And thus, among adults and those having use of reason, in whom a contrary will can exist either actually or habitually, baptism requires contrition or devotion to receive the reality behind the sacrament, as well as intention or will to receive the sacrament.

But among children lacking in either one, both the sacrament and the reality are received." End quote.

In the seventh place, he says, quote, "Among children, there cannot be a contrary will, either actually or habitually.

And thus, in them, neither willing nor intention is required for any impediment to be removed." End quote.

In the eighth place, he states, quote, "As Augustine says in his book On Charity, 'No man is born of water and the Holy Spirit unwillingly,' which is to be understood not of little children, but of adults.

In like manner, we are to understand as applying to adults that man without himself is not justified by Christ.""Moreover, if little children who are about to be baptized resist as much as they can, this is not imputed to them since so little do they know what they do, that they seem not to do it at all." As Augustine says in a book on the presence of God addressed to Dardanus.

End quote.

Clearly, he does not believe that there are impediments that can in any way be placed to the virtue of faith when it comes to infants.

Thus, in the ninth place, he writes, quote, "The carnal intention of those who take children to be baptized does not hurt the latter, as neither does one sin hurt another unless he consents." End quote.

Further, in the tenth place, he writes, quote, "Since all children are equally disposed to baptism, because they are baptized not in their own faith but in that of the Church, they all receive an equal effect in Baptism; whereas adults who approach Baptism in their own faith are not equally disposed to Baptism, for some approach thereto with greater, some less devotion." End quote.

Further, in the eleventh place, St. Thomas even denies that it is a hindrance to the effects of Baptism if the parents are unbelievers.

Quote, "As Augustine says writing to Boniface, 'In the Church of our Savior, little children believe through others just as they contract from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism.' Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because as Augustine says writing to the same Boniface, 'Little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them, as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful.' And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism they strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children; but the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Spirit who unites the Church together and communicates the goods of one member to another." End quote.

In fact, in a twelfth place, which says something similar, he teaches that Baptism gives the reality of the unity of the Church, which is why this does not violate the principle that.

Quote, "This is to be understood however, not as to receiving the sacrament, but as to the reality behind the sacrament, which is the unity of the Church, outside of which there is no salvation nor life." End quote.

Enough for St. Thomas.

Are there any other doctors who hold that regardless, infants are regenerated by Baptism?

Yes, and it is the universal consensus of the medievals, of which I'll give a few notable names to confirm the thesis, although I could give dozens if not hundreds more.

First, Blessed Denis the Carthusian, following Richard of Middleton, after extensively citing many of the texts that I gave above, writes, quote, "In Baptism, the evil of guilt and punishment is removed and the good of grace is conferred.

Regarding the first two, the effect of Baptism is equal in all children just as original sin is equal in all of them, and no one is bound to greater punishment than another.

Furthermore, according to the common law, one does not receive greater graces than another in Baptism." End quote.

Second, Peter Poissier in book five chapter six distinguishes three groups: infants who receive remission of their sins and the infusion of grace, and if they die, eternal life; contrite adults; and non-contrite adults.

Therefore, he clearly holds to the same doctrine.

Third, Blessed Scotus in his Ordinatio actually explicitly refutes the argument that Baptism is not fruitful for infants among heretics saying, quote, "To the second principal argument, it is said that a child is conjoined to God through the faith of the parents.

To the contrary, posit the parents to be heretics.

It is said that he is conjoined through the faith of the Church.

On the contrary, let it be that in the Church militant there were none faithful, yet that they who offer the child for Baptism would be intending to do what Christ did.

The child would still truly be baptized and receive grace.

I say therefore to the argument that de facto grace is given to none, save through some meritorious cause which merits his first union with God, that this meritorious cause is Christ.

But because this one is not necessary to grant another cause intrinsic to the recipient, whereby he may be conjoined to God before he received grace." End quote.

A similar response is given by Cajetan in commenting on St. Thomas's use of, quote, "faith of the Church."

End quote.

This is also something taught by St. Bonaventure who writes, quote, "To the objection about faith, that the faith of the Church suffices, it must be said that faith is like a universal agent, but intention is a particular agent applying faith to this or that.

Thus, faith is preserved in the generality of the Church, but intention is necessary to couple that act of the faith of the Church as a particular and actual act in the minister.

The power of the sacrament, therefore, comes from the faith of the Church, but its dispensation comes from the minister's action.

And since the ministry pertains to the intention of the one conferring, faith is not required in the dispenser in the same way as intention is." End quote.

In fact, Blessed Scotus goes so far in the next distinction as to affirm that those in heresy or schism can receive all of the effects of Baptism if they do not place the impediment malice, writing, quote, "The truth of the question is plain for many authorities, because by whatever malice a minister is bad, whether of heresy or schism or morals, with the unity of the Church preserved, if you intend to do what the Church does and keep the manner of the Church, he truly confers Baptism, and such Baptism truly has its effect in the baptized notwithstanding the malice of the minister, unless the malice of the receiver stand in the way in this, that he is receiving from such a minister." End quote.

It is clear that by effect, he does not simply mean the effect of the sacramental character which is necessary for validity, but also the effect of the other graces....

since, in accordance with his teaching on those who receive in bad faith present in the fourth distinction, he affirms that the effect of the character is present in those who receive in bad faith.

He goes on to confirm this further, saying, quote, "Either a heretic baptizes the child in the form and intention of the Church, and in this, nothing is an obstacle to the child, neither as to the sacrament, nor as to the effect, or he baptizes an adult, and still he confers on him the sacrament and its effect if there is not in the adult any evil motion, as his consent to the heresy of the baptizer or intention to become his disciple." End quote.

It is incredibly important that we have shown the consent of St. Thomas and Blessed Scotus to this doctrine, for among the medieval theologians at Florence, the strict disciples of St. Thomas and Blessed Scotus made up the vast majority of authors.

Along with a confirming text by St. Bonaventure, it was held in high regard by the Franciscans at Florence.

Beside this, we have also quoted Blessed Denis of Carthusian, who's regarded as the capstone of all of the medieval theologians, especially immediately following Florence.

Now, I could keep going on and on and on, but you get the point.

If you want to read any author talking about this point from the medieval church, just read their commentary on distinction four of book four of the Sentences.

It is clear and obvious and right there.

So it has become clear that infants born within heretical or schismatic sects, according to the mind of the medievals, which is clarified more and more in the Baroque and the Leonine era, the sacraments administered by these heretical or schismatic ministers give grace.

Thus, the thesis that is given by Jean-Luc immediately fails.

Yet, what about the text given from the Council of Florence, that, quote, "Unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives, that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance, that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation." End quote.

Did all of the theologians at Florence somehow condemn the entire tradition before them?

Did they condemn themselves in the Sentences commentaries that they wrote as bachelors of theology?

Did they condemn those great masters that they wrote in allegiance to throughout their entire lives?

Did they condemn the other doctors of the schools who they were loyal to as well?

Clearly, this idea is absurd.

So what does this text mean?

Well, what you have to remember is that schism is a type of sin.

Schism is damnable, because it is a mortal sin.

It's classified as one of those indispositions that the medieval theologians and magisterium speak of.

Thus, it needs to be treated like any other mortal act that is grave.

It is perfectly normal for us to say that all schismatics go to hell without qualification.

Why is this the case?

It is quite simple.

Ordinarily when we name a sin, we are naming some mortal act on the part of a person that the individual is culpable for.

Thus, for example, St. Paul states that those of various different classes, drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, liars, et cetera, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

To use a classic example, if someone happens to commit adultery in a non-culpable way, for example, if he is invincibly ignorant that the woman he is with is not his wife, then the individual is more properly said to be a non-adulterer than an adulterer, although in order to better explain this, we use the language of a material adulterer.

But would these possible cases of material adultery stop me from saying without qualification that all adulterers go to hell?

Of course not.

It is assumed that when we name a certain mortal act, we intend to name that act as culpably exercised.

That is, the act formally considered, not the act materially considered.

This was my purpose behind my invocation of St. Augustine's words to the Donatists in an earlier discussion with Jean-Luc, where St. Augustine states that those are not obstinate in their heresy, or rather called non-heretics than heretics.

Thus, those who commit an act of schism in an inculpable way are rather called non-schismatics than schismatics.

It is completely irresponsible and intellectually lazy, if not dishonest, to quote texts without having read and understood the teaching of those authors that surround those texts and the categories that they are working with in their own works.

Thus, the medievals have an entire system of general moral theology about the culpability surrounding immoral acts that clearly show that they do not universally apply the condemnations of Florence to all those in schism, but only those culpable for their actions, as is most clearly shown in the case of infants who are the least culpable.

The Cardinal Franzlin I mentioned earlier gives a quite good overview of this teaching, although as mentioned, there are thousands, if not more, teachings from other pre-Vatican II authors who say the same exact thing.

He says, quote, "For the reason just stated, the sacraments of the Church, wherever they are validly conferred, produce all those effects that an obstacle in the recipient does not impede.

Thus, if we speak specifically of baptism conferred by a heretical or schismatic minister upon infants, in whom there can be no obstacle, it has all the same essential effects as if it were conferred by a Catholic minister.

Not only are they marked with the character of Christ, but they are also regenerated as children of God through grace and incorporated into the Holy Mother Church, whose members they remain, at least in the internal forum and before God, until they adhere to schism or heresy by their own act, which would be a mortal sin.

This applies fully to those called material heretics or schismatics, that is, in the external forum alone, as St. Augustine teaches in many places about the sacrament by which the Mother Church generates children not only through her own womb, but also through the wombs of handmaids." End quote. The reason that the sacraments of those in heresy or schism do not benefit them to eternal life is because they are ill-disposed to receive such graces by their immoral acts.

If they have acts of heresy or schism that they are not culpable for, clearly the reason for the ill disposition is removed, and it would be absurd to give the same condemnation.

And since they are lacking the form of their act that specifies it in being a sin, then they would only improperly or materially be referred to as schismatics or heretics.

This is why, as Franzlon points out, St. Augustine sometimes qualifies his statement about the lacking fruit among schismatics with, quote, "Those who are proud and do not join the lawful mother." End quote.

Thus, Franzlon goes on to say, quote, "Thus, those who are proud, that is, who out of any perverse desires or culpable negligence, do not seek the truth as they ought or refuse to embrace it once sufficiently proposed, formally or equivalently adhere to error, and rebelling against God and His Church, are torn from it as formal heretics or schismatics, not only in the external forum but also before God, and in the internal forum, holy exile.

But on the contrary, those who are only materially heretics or schismatics, that is by external profession alone and not by culpable adherence of mind, could be considered even as adults to have that disposition of good faith." End quote.

That disposition of good faith, which renders a schismatic or heretic merely material, is assumed by St. Augustine of some, for example, the aforementioned epistle, where he writes, quote, "Though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who have been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics." End quote.

In fact, interestingly enough, this inculpability for the moral act of schism is actually baked into the old rite of the reception of heretics and schismatics.

For, as Franzlon points out, for those received into the church from ages seven to 14, which were above the age of reason, they were only required to give a profession of faith rather than an abjuration of heresies.

Thus, they were clearly assumed to not be culpable for their errors.

So the questions I have for Sean Luke and others are: If Florence teaches that no sacraments practiced outside of the church are salvific simply by virtue of not being within the juridical bounds of the church, rather than by reason of moral culpability, why do they believe that infants who are baptized were saved when baptized by these individuals?

It can either be because of their lack of culpability or perhaps they're condemning their own views.

The latter is absurd.

So as to the former, then you admit that it has to do with the moral quality of the act of schism.

If this is the case, then why would it not also apply to anyone else who, in accordance with their own teaching on general moral theology, is not culpable for their schism?

If not, why has the church assumed inculpability for heresy and schism among the young, that is under the age of 14?

Would it not be a great crime for them to not require this ancient and necessary ceremony in the reception of heretics and schismatics?

Now, many of you claim that this distinction between material and formal schism is something novel that the authors at Florence did not have in mind.

But this is absurd and merely exposes the ignorance of many of you who presume to attack the Catholic Church while ignorant of the doctrine you speak of.

One of the greatest theologians of Florence was Juan de Torquemada, who was an expert at ecclesiology and one of the biggest influences on the ecclesiology of Florence.

If anyone is able to express the mind of the documents, it is him.

Torquemada was one of the most active legates and theologians at Florence, going before kings to do the bidding of the Pope.

He was appointed by the Pope to be present as a theologian at the earliest conferences of the council, where the topics were discussed before the opening sessions.

In fact, in the famous quote by Cardinal Bessarion concerning the Latins destroying all their arguments against the Filioque in the beginning of the council, it was Torquemada who was the spokesman.

In fact, it seems like he was the one who convinced Bessarion of the Catholic teaching on purgatory.

In the debates that took place throughout the council, he was appointed as one of the six official orators of the Latins.

Specifically, he represented the Dominican order at the council.

Beside this, he wrote definitive chronicles on the council as well.

His biggest contributions came down to debates over the sacraments and the role of the Roman Pontiff.

Besides these discussions with the Greeks, he was also involved with the discussions with the Copts.

Well, luckily for us, he wrote a work called Summa de Ecclesia, and the entire fourth book is about schism and heresy.

Isn't that fantastic?

Well, does he mention material schism and heresy anywhere in this work?

He absolutely does.

This is evident when he discusses the necessity of pertinacity for there to be true schism.

He says, quote, "Not just any disobedience suffices to constitute the nature of schism, but only that which is pertinacious with a certain rebellion.

It is rightly understood that the disobedience through which schism is incurred must be taken with a certain pertinacity.

Hence, Alexander of Hale says that schism, properly understood, occurs when one pertinaciously withdraws from obedience to the head of the church.

And Blessed Thomas says that not obeying precepts with a certain rebellion constitutes the nature of schism.

I say with rebellion when one both pertinaciously despises precepts and refuses to submit to his judgment." End quote.

He applies this question when he considers the question of adhering to an anti-pope, in which he also includes the Eastern schismatics....

drawing the same distinction between various different groups that we do to this day, and are clearly reflected in the teaching of St. Thomas when he discusses general moral theology in Prima Secundae, as I already told Sean Luke.

But as somebody addicted to his own judgment and errors, he didn't listen.

Torquemada wrote, quote, "First proposition, that those who intentionally separate themselves from him who they know to be the true Roman pontiff are schismatics.

This proposition is manifest from what was said above, where it was stated that those are truly schismatics who intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the church or from the Apostolic See.

Second proposition, those adhering to an antipope out of perverse ignorance, which is when someone directly wishes to remain ignorant of the knowledge of the truth and is drawn back by sin, are schismatics.

This proposition is evident because such ignorance, since it is voluntary, does not excuse but accuses and increases the sin.

Third proposition, those who adhere to an intruder or antipope out of error or gross or supine ignorance, for example, because they do not care to apply diligence but neglect to be informed of the truth, which they are bound to investigate, namely who in truth is the pope, are not excused from the staining guilt of schism.

This proposition is evident because such adherence to an antipope proceeds from ignorance that is in some way voluntary, since they voluntarily condemn or neglect to know what they are bound to know, for no one is excused by ignorance when he has access to the learned.

Fourth proposition, those who after exact diligence to know the truth about who is the true pope could not be fully clarified, and induced by some probable reasons adhere to an antipope, yet with the intention of always adhering to the true pontiff once they could truthfully be informed of this, seem to be excused from the staining guilt of schism.

This is proved because their ignorance is entirely involuntary, since it is invincible and without any disorder of will, and consequently, the act that follows is without any fault.

Hence, Lord Ulrich in his Summa says, quote, "As someone regarding a doubtful action consults the more learned, having no express authority on whether it is so or not, provided he form a good conscience after consulting the more learned, even if the matter turns out otherwise, he has not sinned, for he did what he could, and God requires nothing impossible for men." End quote.

Fifth proposition, simple people and unlearned who lack knowledge of law or fact seem to be excused from the staining guilt of schism by obeying and adhering to the one whom their prelates obeyed and adhered to, because they have a readiness of mind to obey whosever right might be sufficiently shown, whether by God's revelation, the church's declaration, or any other means." End quote.

Thus he brings up the following objection that would assume the definition of heresy that Sean Luke seems to have.

How much clearer could this get?

If you have someone acting in good faith and always willing to follow the commands of God, carrying out his duty and invincibly in ignorance, he is not a schismatic.

Thus, his baptism does incorporate him into the church since, as St. Thomas teaches, union to the church is given in baptism.

Now, when it comes to heresy, he brings up the following objection that would assume the definition of heresy that Sean Luke seems to have, writing, quote, "It is often argued against that where it says pertinaciously, et cetera, it is argued first as follows, that this particle is superfluously included.

Innocent III, writing to the Count of Flouz, says, quote, 'Those are to be understood as manifest heretics who publicly dispute against the Catholic faith or profess or defend an error or who have been convicted before their prelates or who have confessed or have been judicially condemned by them for heretical depravity.' End quote.

In these words, no mention is made of pertinacity.

Therefore, anyone who errs against the Catholic faith, even if not pertinaciously, seems to be considered a heretic." End quote.

Yet he refutes this, writing, quote, "To the eighth objection, where it is argued that pertinacity is superfluously included, it is responded that this is false, and when it is argued that in the definitions assigned by the Holy Fathers no mention is made of pertinacity, a twofold response is given.

First, according to the distinction set forward above by Master Alexander of Hales, namely that in those definitions the term heretic is not defined most properly as we are now speaking but either commonly or properly as is distinguished from most properly.

Second, it is responded, and this is better, that although pertinacity is not expressly stated in the aforementioned definitions, it is understood since it pertains to the essence of heresy as was sufficiently shown from the authorities of Blessed Augustine." End quote.

Very clearly, when the medievals were using terms like heretic and heresy, they did not mean the material representation or mere adherence to falsehood but required the special character of pertinacity, as was seen in the case of schism.

Lastly, the Magisterium has taught this on a number of occasions before Vatican II that someone who does not place an obstacle to the baptismal graces receives these graces.

This is exactly the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

First, Innocent III affirmed the plenitude of graces and remission is to be found at the baptism of infants, stating, quote, "For they assert that baptism is conferred uselessly on children.

We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold, namely original and actual.

Original, which is contracted without consent, and actual, which is committed with consent.

Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament.

But actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent." End quote.

Second, against Martin Luther...Leo the Tenth condemned the following thesis as heretical.

Quote, "It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the new law give pardon and grace to those who do not set up an obstacle." End quote.

Third, the Council of Trent, session seven, condemned the following theses, saying, quote, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the new law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer the grace on those who do not place an obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession by which the faithful among men are distinguished from the unbelievers, let them be anathema.

If anyone shall say that grace, as far as concerns God's part, is not given through the sacraments always and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but only sometimes and to some persons, let him be anathema." End quote.

Now, it has been proven from all the magisterial statements above, the principle that those not placing an obstacle to the sacraments receive grace is firmly to be held, which was already taught in all of the medieval schools, as I pointed out above.

Now, this clearly applies to all infants baptized in heretical or schismatic sects.

Yet, does this also apply to adults?

Obviously, it does apply to adults who are culpable for their schism, as pointed out above in the talk from Florence.

But can one be rendered inculpable for their action of schism?

Yes.

The church affirms this in their teaching on general moral theology against Jansenists.

This is most clearly seen in the teaching of Alexander VIII, who stated, quote, "Although there is such a thing as invincible ignorance of the law of nature, this, in the state of fallen nature, does not excuse from formal sin anyone acting out of ignorance." End quote.

It is a condemned thesis of the Jansenists, long before Vatican II, to assert universally that invincible ignorance cannot render a moral act inculpable.

Thus, it is completely erroneous to assert that simply because an act of schism causes one to be indisposed the sacraments, that such an act cannot be excused from formal sin, and thus not be a cause of indisposition, that is in an act of material schism.

This is basically all there is to say.

It is completely absurd to state that in principle, someone outside the juridical communion of the church does not receive a fruitful baptism, according to the teaching of the church.

This is clearly seen in the case of infants, but it is also seen in adults when one presents the teaching of the church on culpability for sinful acts.

The interpretation of Florence is quite easy when one is aware of the background material, and especially that of the writings of , who played a chief role in the ecclesiology of Florence, including the drafting of documents.

That's all.

And as always, God bless.