Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum)
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» The Unity of the Body (the Church, Israel)
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptySun Mar 17, 2024 9:23 am by tornpage

» Defilement of the Temple
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyTue Feb 06, 2024 7:44 am by tornpage

» Forum update
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptySat Feb 03, 2024 8:24 am by tornpage

» Bishop Williamson's Recent Comments
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyThu Feb 01, 2024 12:42 pm by MRyan

» The Mysterious 45 days of Daniel 12:11-12
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyFri Jan 26, 2024 11:04 am by tornpage

» St. Bonaventure on the Necessity of Baptism
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyTue Jan 23, 2024 7:06 pm by tornpage

» Isaiah 22:20-25
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:44 am by tornpage

» Translation of Bellarmine's De Amissione Gratiae, Bk. VI
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:04 am by tornpage

» Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyThu Jan 18, 2024 3:06 pm by MRyan

» Do Feeneyites still exist?
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyWed Jan 17, 2024 8:02 am by Jehanne

» Sedevacantism and the Church's Indefectibility
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptySat Jan 13, 2024 5:22 pm by tornpage

» Inallible safety?
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyThu Jan 11, 2024 1:47 pm by MRyan

» Usury - Has the Church Erred?
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 11:05 pm by tornpage

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 8:40 pm by MRyan

» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyFri Jan 05, 2024 8:57 am by Jehanne

» Anyone still around?
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyMon Jan 01, 2024 11:04 pm by Jehanne

» Angelqueen.org???
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptyTue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

+3
MRyan
Jehanne
columba
7 posters

Page 6 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:27 pm

It was the strongly pessimistic theological tradition of St Thomas's time that seems to have disposed him to take for granted that aborted children die in original sin, but the outlook of today is far more positive and open to the hope of their salvation.

St. Augustine clearly saw, in the example of infants - some being baptized to salvation, others not, without any exercise of their free wills - an expression of the gratuitous mercy of God in election. I mention this not to go down that road - again - with you, but to point out how so much is involved with this issue: predestination, grace, reprobation, original sin, etc.

Revelation was complete with the death of the Apostles. One would think that the Apostles had a pretty good grasp of these "big" issues, issues at the core of salvation, the understanding of which was handed down. Thus, St. Augustine and St. Thomas, writing as successors to this revelation and tradition, did not believe - and the Church clearly taught, whether it definitively pronounced or settled upon the issue or not - that those who depart in original sin go down to Hell.

If infants do not depart in "original sin," who does? Is this a "null set" that the Church was telling us about?


I understand there is some development of doctrine. But, if these infants who depart without baptism don't die in original sin, who does? And - I'll look it up, but it's not on my fingertips, so I don't have the quote or the council - what was that infallible council of ours talking about?
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:29 pm

Actually, the Church did "settle" and tell us infallibly that those who depart in original sin go to Hell.
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:31 pm

Mike, I doubt if this exchange will bear any more fruit than previous exchanges. All that can possibly be said on the matter (barring something new being brought to the table) has most likely already been said. I will however sum up my position and you can tell me where it contradicts Church teaching.

I believe that to date the Church knows of no other means other than sacramental Baptism that can assure salvation. I too know of no other means and till such times as the Church (and I) know of such I will believe that everything else is mere speculation.

I believe that an act of perfect love of God can suffice for salvation and would replace the necessity of sacramental Baptism, but as we already know, the Church cannot say for sure that this means is a practical possibility because without Baptism there is no other means known to the Church by which this sancification can take place and therefore this act of perfect love must be bound to the sacrament of Baptism. If it can exist outside of Baptism then the Church could not affirm its existence without first declaring that she now knows of another means of sancification apart from Baptism and her previous statement of ignorance of another means no longer holds true.

Your accusation that my position, "is such a gross distortion of the truth that I do not hesitate to call it a lie," does not change the fact that the Church knows of no other means apart from Baptism that can assure salvation and as such is itself a distortion of truth on your part. If I read the words of Pope Pius XII as not confirming a new means of salvation but merely stating that if another means did in fact exist it would be conjoined to a perfect act of love, I do so in the knowledge that Pope Pius XII himself did -at that time- not know of any means apart from Baptism that assures salvation. You have obviously read them in such a way that he did believe in another means even though to this day the Church confirms that no other way is known.

I, like the Church, hope that God in his provdence has provided for all circumstances and til such times as the Church tells me different I will believe that God so does provide by supplying the waters of Baptism to all who seek Him with a sincere and contrite heart, even if He must supply those waters miraculously.
In so believing I have not distorted either the words of any pope or the words of Christ Himself who affirms that what I belive is in accord with His own teaching, that, "Truly I say unto you, unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Do you not consider it strange Mike that even with all your saints and Doctors citations to the contrary, the Church still to this day has a statement in her much compromised catechism that confirms and affirms that. “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.- The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..." CCC. 1257. I therefore take it that you are attributing more authority to the speculative writings of saints and Doctors and to popes in their locally received alicutions than you are to the auhthoritve and universal teachings of the Church; the same post-conciliar Church I might add that you deride me for resisting in her contradictions.
columba
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:21 pm

tornpage wrote:Actually, the Church did "settle" and tell us infallibly that those who depart in original sin go to Hell.
Correct. And in the present economy the Church does not know of a means other than Baptism that can remove original sin and assure an unbaptized infant's salvation.

But please don't tell me you are going to go down the "'de fide - there can be no hope for the salvation of unbaptized children" canard.

You know better than that.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:44 pm

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

This is de fide.

Who are "those" who depart in "original sin alone"? A genuine "null set"?
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:48 pm

It would appear, Mike, that Jehanne has some precedent for his "null sets." Or maybe we can "hope" he does. Very Happy
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:08 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

As I said in my other thread, I am not going to discuss this issue any more there but I will mention here, in this thread, some errors that you have with respect to #1261.

1) Paragraph #1261 may be referring to Limbo. That's what is referenced in the CCC Index, and that interpretation has never been condemned and/or censored by the Church nor by any bishop.
Nonsense. You haven't replied to my previous responses, but simply repeat this species "interpretation" as if it has any merit.

Again:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
"Limbo" is not "a way of salvation". Jesus does not desire that unbaptized infants are deprived of the beatific vision/salvation as a punishment for original sin.

The fact that the Index says "Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals", and it is not opposed to the mercy of God does not mean that 1261 is speaking about Limbo when it speaks of "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants; unless, as you seem hell bent on insisting, Limbo = salvation for unbaptized infants -- which is heresy.

Limbo is indexed to #1261 because the doctrine of hope is not a "certain" doctrine; meaning, while there are reasons for hope, the reformable doctrine of Limbo has not been "overturned".

Seriously, Jehanne, this is insane. And here I thought columba had a monopoly on forcing the opposite meaning to clearly stated words of the popes.

The only one in "error" is you.

Jehanne wrote:
2) Paragraph #1261 may be making an historical observation, and nothing more. As Father Harrison has pointed out, #1261 has no references to it, so it may be simply be acknowledging the fact that the Church has allowed theologians (and, by extension, everyone else) "to hope" without condemnation. As you yourself know, individuals such as Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, Jean Gerson, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux all expressed some hope for parents who wanted to baptize their babies but were not able to.
Yes, they did, and you are only proving that the issue has not been settled.

No, 1261 is not just an "historical observation"; it is a clear teaching on the doctrine of hope for unbaptized infants. Why do you think the Pope commissioned the ITC to explore this issue -- to make "historical observations"?

1261 does not need a "reference"; the authority of the Ecclesia docens is sufficient reference enough to know the mind of the Church when she presents to the universal Church an objective teaching on a matter of salvation - the Church allows hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants -- without lessening the necessity of baptism or assuring these infants of salvation. She has theological, Scriptural and Liturgical grounds for hope, whether you or Fr. Harrison like it or not.

Furthermore, 1261, which can be said to reflect the mind of VCII, is indirectly linked and referenced to Evangelium Vitae, Lumen Gentium and Guadium et spes, all of which represent a supreme magisterial authority unto itself and provide the same reasons for hope.

#1261 is a summation and reflection of those magisterial documents, and reflects the mind of the Pope and the universal will of the Bishops in union with him.

Jehanne wrote:3) Paragraph #1261 cannot be read as offering any 'good hope'":
1261 teaches quite clearly and specifically that "Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism."

Please don't tell me that the #1261 cannot read as offering any "good hope" when that's exactly what it says.

Jehanne wrote:
Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1º the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2º there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Can. 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless after diligent investigation the baptism of the infant is established.

Can. 871 If aborted fetuses are alive, they are to be baptized insofar as possible.
If #1261 could be read as offering "good hope" let alone "certain hope" for an infant who dies without sacramental Baptism, then Canon 868 §2 would be a sin against charity, Canon 870 would be presumptuous, and Canon 871 would be unnecessary.

4) Paragraph 1261 does not claim to overturn any previous Catechisms and/or Magisterial teachings.

What Pope Sixtus V stated in his Papal Bull Effraenatam still stands.
Canons 868 §1, §2, 870 or 871 have nothing to do with the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants, they pertain strictly to the Law of Baptism.

Your comments about the doctrine of "hope", as it pertains to these canons, is "a sin against charity", "presumptuous" and render 871 "unnecessary" are simply false.

1261 says nothing about the "certainty" of salvation and it also affirms the urgency of bringing the children to baptism, and the CCC, in the same section, confirms its necessity and contradicts none of the cited canons.

Enough of the red-herrings.

"What Pope Sixtus V stated in his Papal Bull Effraenatam still stands" - correct; but the Constitution did not magisterially affirm that there can be no hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

"Paragraph 1261 does not claim to overturn any previous Catechisms and/or Magisterial teachings"; also correct, and no one said it did. However, if the issue has never been definitively settled, as you admit; then there is nothing to "overturn" with respect to irreformable doctrine, except a reformable common doctrine that states (in the words of Pope Pius XII) that IN THE PRESENT ECONOMY unbaptized infants are presumed lost because the Church does not know of any other way other than Baptism that can assure them of salvation.

Well, the "present economy" is being developed.

And even with the doctrine of hope, it does not overturn the more common opinion, but, let us say, it opened the door of hope by offering optimistic grounds for salvation where heretofore the "pessimism" of the power of Satan (original sin) was the common doctrine.

If the Church had already settled the matter than Fr. Harrison should have condemned the Church for not only teaching a doctrine that allegedly has no "weight" whatsoever, but for teaching heresy. And he should have condemned the Church for allowing her theologians to explore the theological, Scriptural and Liturgical reasons for hope, such as the "Sources in the Magisterium and St Thomas"; and not only for the hope of salvation for aborted infants, but for the hope of salvation for all unbaptized infants.

I knew my series of posts on this topic highlighting the theology behind the recent developments in doctrine would be largely wasted; but sometimes I am still surprised by the responses. I guess I should have known better.



MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:19 pm

tornpage wrote:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

This is de fide.

Who are "those" who depart in "original sin alone"? A genuine "null set"?
Tornpage,

Have you taken the time to read my series of posts?

Yes, its "de fide" that "those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds"; but it is NOT "de fide" that God cannot provide the means to supply the grace of Baptism.

Even if the Church ever declared that aborted infants enjoy the grace of martyrdom, she is not about to place other unbaptized infants in this same category. And it does not appear that she has sufficient grounds for turning the doctrine of "hope" into an irreformable doctrine of salvation.

So as long as there is only "hope", your attempt at "null set" humor is largely misplaced.

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:13 pm

Mike,

The Church says we can "hope" that infants who die without baptism may be in heaven. It is not only talking about infants who were aborted, but all infants who die without baptism. Is the "hope" in vain? I would hope not - no pun intended. So let us assume that the "hope" makes good, and infants who die without baptism are in heaven.

Who, then, is the Church referring to when it "define[d]" that souls who depart this life with "original sin alone" are in hell?

Can an adult be in hell with "original sin alone"? Think about it.

I repeat . . . is this a "null set"? If not, who, other than infants who die in infancy without baptism, could be in hell with "original sin alone"?
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:17 pm

Mike,

Have you taken the time to read my series of posts?

Yes, of course, your posts are well worth the read.

Maybe I missed it . . . but I don't recall you being asked what I'm asking, or you posing yourself that question and then answering it in one of your posts.
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:02 am

Tornpage wrote:
Mike,

The Church says we can "hope" that infants who die without baptism may be in heaven. It is not only talking about infants who were aborted, but all infants who die without baptism. Is the "hope" in vain? I would hope not - no pun intended. So let us assume that the "hope" makes good, and infants who die without baptism are in heaven.

Who, then, is the Church referring to when it "define[d]" that souls who depart this life with "original sin alone" are in hell?

Can an adult be in hell with "original sin alone"? Think about it.
I have thought about it, and my answer is the same. The Church is referring to all of those who die in original sin alone. The “hope” that unbaptized infants do not die in original sin is not magisterial certitude, and so long as it is not certain, the very real possibility of hell -- as the final destiny for unbaptized children -- remains true, and “those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds" remains just as true today as it did before the development of the doctrine of hope.

The Church still does not know of a means other than sacramental ablution that can assure unbaptized infants of salvation.

Some Catholics believe that Limbo does not exist and all unbaptized infants are saved by the mercy of God. For them, hell (and the Limbo of hell) is a null set for unbaptized infants. So what?

The Church also allows Catholics to believe that unbaptized infants suffer the eternal torments of hell, so for those who believe this, both Limbo and Heaven are “null sets” for unbaptized infants - period. But does that change the fact that Limbo is still a common doctrine and that we are allowed to hope for their salvation?

Tornpage wrote:
I repeat . . . is this a "null set"? If not, who, other than infants who die in infancy without baptism, could be in hell with "original sin alone"?
I don’t know if infants who die without the sacrament of baptism suffer the torments of hell, or the “Limbo” of hell, or eternal beatitude; and neither do you. What we do know is that IF they die in original sin, they are lost (de fide). And so long as the question remains open, this “null set” obsession is entirely academic, and serves only to distract us from the Theological, Scriptural and Liturgical grounds for hope, and the arguments against them.

I don’t see how rendering hell or the limbo of hell as a “null set” IF unbaptized infants are saved by the mercy and grace of God is a legitimate argument when the Church has not settled the question of Limbo or the fate of unbaptized infants.

The real “doctrine” behind the baptism of blood and baptism of desire “null set” theory that I have been combating is the belief that the gift of sanctifying grace is NOT sufficient (apart from water Baptism) for salvation.

To turn this to your analogy, it would be the belief that the mercy of God is NOT sufficient (it is a never exercised "null set") to save unbaptized infants - after all, the power of Satan with his claim over these souls is more powerful than the universal will and mercy of God to bring these children to Him.

The real “doctrine” behind the baptism of blood and baptism of desire “null set” theory is also the belief that the Church has dogmatically declared that no one can attain the Kingdom without the sacrament in re.

Turning to your analogy, it would be the equivalent of saying that it has been dogmatically declared that unbaptized infants can have no hope of salvation.

Catholics may hold that God does not allow anyone to enter the kingdom without the sacrament of Baptism, rendering baptism of blood and baptism of desire null sets, and I have no problem with that so long as the doctrine itself is not denied. But, as I have continually demonstrated, the real issue is either overt or tacit opposition to the doctrine which affirms the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood/baptism of desire.

It would appear that you are trying to equate the alleged null set theory of the Baptisms of blood and desire with the doctrine of hope, which, if true, would render hell/limbo as a null set for unbaptized infants.

As far as it goes, even if misleading, the analogy is fair – but so what? Because it is fair, are you using this as a basis to deny the doctrine of hope which, if true, opens the possibility to there being no souls in hell who die in original sin alone?

I simply do not understand why you are going down this road.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:14 pm

I simply do not understand why you are going down this road.

Simply a search for truth.

It would appear that you are trying to equate the alleged null set theory of the Baptisms of blood and desire with the doctrine of hope, which, if true, would render hell/limbo as a null set for unbaptized infants.

If it is a "null set" - which is, I'm assuming, a "real" possibility, taking the Church with its "hope" at its word - I then ask whom are being described below:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

You mentioned an "academic exercise" on my part. Is this a theoretical, academic exercise by Pope Eugene IV while exercising his special charism of infallibility?

I say no. I say that the Church is actually telling us that there are souls who depart in "original sin alone" who go to hell. It is not saying, "if a soul were to depart in original sin alone, it would go to hell."

So, I ask, if they are not infants who die without baptism, who would they be? I guess they could be adults who are not baptized and do not develop the mental capacity to exercise a rational, responsible choice, and therefore do not die with mortal sin, and die with “original sin alone.”

But as to those, does not the same universal salvific will which is brought to bear in “hoping” for the infants cover them also? Are they beyond hope?

I speculate that the Church would answer, “no.” Were the answer to be yes, then we have a God who consigns some people to hell on the basis of “original sin alone” strictly by virtue of the fact that they have biologically advanced, simply grown physically, more than the infants.

I would not accept that, do you?

In fact, would not those adults be seeking God in the only way they were capable, by growing bodily? Wasn’t that one of the justifications offered as to the salvation of aborted infants, that they are in fact seeking God by their mere physical growth in the womb, the only way open to them? The same would apply to these mentally deficient adults.

I ask you to directly answer my question. In light of the real possibility (i.e., hope) that the people described by Florence who go to hell with “original sin alone” are not infants who die without baptism, you are faced with two possibilities:

1) Florence is referring to mentally deficient adults who are beyond “hope”;

2) Florence is, or could be, referring to a “null set,” and there are no such people.

Let me know if you see any other options. As it stands, I take it you are going with 2), and the “could be” qualification as to that option.

I see this as a huge problem. The Council of Trent says:

Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 3

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.

If it is or could be a “null set,” then Trent’s distinction between those to whom the merits of Christ’s Passion are applied, and those to whom it is not, is obliterated. All would be born, or conceived, receiving the benefit of His death. Original sin would then not be a bar to anyone, since all born after Christ’s Passion would have original sin wiped away, and would hence be born or conceived in a state of justification . . . if it is a “null set.”

The merits of Christ’s Passion would be applied to everyone who is born, or rather conceived, and the only issue would become . . . do they lose it?

This renders the quote from Trent false – which is impossible. And it is not my theology or faith.

So I say Florence is not, nor cannot be, talking about a “null set” when it says some souls depart from this life with “original sin alone” and go to hell.

If it’s not a “null set,” who is it referring to?

If you still say there is a real possibility it is a “null set,” what about Trent, Session VI, Session 3 – since all would start out having received the benefit of His death merely by birth or conception?
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:24 pm

Mike,

The Church appears to be now saying that it is a "null set."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

That doesn't square with Florence, which says "original sin alone" is enough for one to go to hell.


tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:50 pm

Tornpage,

Try believing both at the same time. If you don't end up schismatic you'll end up schizophrenic.
columba
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:02 pm

This one is easy to resolve. The CCC makes a distinction between Hell and Limbo:

Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues, O.P. 1922

XLVIIL OF THE PLACE OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT JUDGED, VIZ., OF THE LIMBO OF INFANTS

(A) Are there any human beings who at the moment of death are not judged?

Yes. All children who die before attaining the age of reason, or those who though adults never had the use of reason (LXIX. 6).

Is there any allotment at all as regards infants and those who have not had the use of reason?

Yes, but this is not by reason of their merits or demerits; and it is not made by way of judgment. It comes about by the fact that some have received baptism and others have not. Those that have received baptism immediately go to heaven; whereas those who have not received this sacrament go to a place reserved for them which is called Limbo.

OF THE LIMBO OF INFANT

(B) Is Limbo distinct from purgatory and hell?

Yes, because these two latter are places where punishment is inflicted for personal sins (LXIX. 6).

Do infants who have died without baptism suffer the pain of loss in Limbo?

Yes, to a certain degree, for they know they are deprived of the vision of God; but this has not the character of torture such as those in hell suffer (Appendix, 1.2).

Whence arises this difference as regards the pain of loss?

It comes from this, that although they know they are deprived of the vision of God, they also know that this is not by reason of any personal sin but by reason of their being born of Adam, who sinned (ibid.).

For them, then, there is no horrible worm that gnaws their souls such as torments the damned in hell?

No. But they live in a state without any kind of suffering or sadness, except that they are conscious of that supreme happiness which would have been theirs had the merits of the redemption been applied to them and which they will never have, not by any fault on their part but because the inscrutable counsels of God have arranged it so (ibid.).

(c) Do the souls of these infants know the mysteries of the redemption?

Most certainly.

Have they the light of faith?

No, they have not faith in the sense of that interior supernatural light perfecting the mind whereby in a certain intimate manner it penetrates revealed mysteries and generates in the soul a strong desire towards them; they know these mysteries very much in the same way as those who cannot help but assent to the truth of the divine mysteries revealed by God, but who are not drawn by an impulse of grace to cling supernaturally to these mysteries, and as a consequence they do not penetrate the intimate meaning of them.

Besides this Limbo of the souls of children who die before baptism, is not mention made of another Limbo in the language of the Church?

Yes, it is that Limbo where formerly the just were detained, that is, those in whom there was no personal hindrance as regards entrance into heaven, but who had to await the coming of the Redeemer (LXIX. 7).

Is there anyone now in this Limbo of the just?

Since the day when Jesus Christ at the moment of His death descended there and left it on the day of His Resurrection, bringing with Him all the souls of the just, this place ceased to be occupied by those for whom it was primarily destined; but it may be that since then it is the place where children go who die without baptism, so in this case it would be the same as the Limbo of infants.

I have updated my blog on this recently:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/infants-who-die-without-sacramental.html
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:53 pm

Columba,

If you don't end up schismatic you'll end up schizophrenic.

That's very good. Laughing
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:55 pm

Jehanne,

You say the CCC makes a distinction and then cite, "Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues, O.P. 1922."

What?

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:35 pm

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

You say the CCC makes a distinction and then cite, "Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues, O.P. 1922."

What?

St. Thomas Aquinas did not have a "Catechism" per se, the private "Catechism of the Summa Theologica" is based on his overall teachings.

The entire section on Limbo is pure conjecture, though none of it is opposed to the faith.

Why Jeanne thinks that the CCC makes a distinction between Hell and Limbo when it intentionally avoided mentioning Limbo (notwithstanding the oblique reference in the Index), and focused rather on the doctrine of hope -- is anyone's guess.

But, considering Jehanne thinks that the CCC refers to Limbo as the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants, it is not surprising.

Jehanne seems desperate to re-write the CCC.

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:41 pm

tornpage wrote:Columba,

If you don't end up schismatic you'll end up schizophrenic.

That's very good. Laughing
Agreed, and rare is the sede who is not both schismatic and schizophrenic.

Did you know that an adult visible professing member of a particular Eastern Orthodox Church may also be an external visible non-professing member of the Roman Catholic Church?

Nothing schizoid about that!
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:08 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

The Church appears to be now saying that it is a "null set."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

That doesn't square with Florence, which says "original sin alone" is enough for one to go to hell.
Both declarations are true, and there is nothing "schizophrenic" about it. God predestines no one to hell, and original sin alone is enough to for one to go to hell. If non-baptized infants are in hell, it is NOT because God predestined them to eternal loss.

Besides, you have taken the CCC out of context. Here is what it means by "Hell":

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
The souls who die in original sin alone are not destined with evil doers to be thrown into "the unquenchable fire" where they are condemned with the words: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!".

Well, unless one is partial to Augustine's doctrine.

But they are punished with "eternal separation", though we are allowed to speculate that they may not even be aware of their eternal loss.

It is clear that the Church does not consider Limbo as "Hell", even if it is a place set aside within (at the fringe of) Hell.

But, then again we are allowed to have hope in their salvation; meaning, the hope that God will remove the stain of original sin with the grace of baptism at the point of death.





MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:34 pm

Mike,

Why Jeanne thinks that the CCC makes a distinction between Hell and Limbo when it intentionally avoided mentioning Limbo (notwithstanding the oblique reference in the Index), and focused rather on the doctrine of hope -- is anyone's guess.

Agreed. No mention of Limbo in the CCC.

The souls who die in original sin alone are not destined with evil doers to be thrown into "the unquenchable fire" where they are condemned with the words: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!".

So the souls who die with "original sin alone" are not in hell according to the CCC; they are not in Limbo (there is no Limbo in the CCC); and, they are not in Purgatory. Where are they?

As to the inconsistency or "schizophrenia," the symptom that had my focus was not on "God predestines no one to hell." It was on Florence saying those who depart with either "mortal sin" or "original sin alone" are in " hell," with the latter subject to a lesser punishment. The CCC says only those with "mortal sin" are in hell. That's a bald inconsistency.

Florence, not the CCC, is infallible and de fide. I'll follow Florence.

It is clear that the Church does not consider Limbo as "Hell", even if it is a place set aside within (at the fringe of) Hell.

Is not Florence's part of hell, the part where those with "original sin alone" go, the same place as your Limbo which is not part of hell, where those with "original sin alone" go?

And I bet in the Latin versions, Florence and the CCC have the same Latin word for "hell."

In any event, again but stated somewhat differently, here's the big problem with the "hope" for infants who die without baptism of the CCC.

Florence says de fide that souls who depart with "original sin alone" are in hell. If the CCC's hope is realized, everyone who died before adulthood would be in heaven. Once one reaches adulthood, one receives actual graces and either cooperates with them and ends up in a state of justification via baptism of desire, or fails to cooperate and sins mortally. No adult ends up in hell with "original sin alone."

Again, if no one who died in infancy without baptism is in hell with "original sin alone," who is?

Florence necessarily disproves the CCC's "hope" for infants, unless it is speaking only academically and about a "null set."

I used to believe in "null sets" . . . and in Santa Claus.

One ex-Feeneyite to another: I no longer believe the Church exercises its solemn and infallible magisterium - or Our Lord makes divine revelations (same thing) - to engage in academic surmising about "null sets," do you?
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:51 pm

tornpage wrote:
Mryan wrote:
The souls who die in original sin alone are not destined with evil doers to be thrown into "the unquenchable fire" where they are condemned with the words: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!".
So the souls who die with "original sin alone" are not in hell according to the CCC; they are not in Limbo (there is no Limbo in the CCC); and, they are not in Purgatory. Where are they?
No, you are embellishing what the CCC actually says. The CCC does not say “they are not in Limbo”, it is silent on the fate of unbaptized infants, except to leave them in God’s hands and to hope for their salvation.

If “hope” is not certitude, then the more common opinion on Limbo (hell) is certainly still in play, and for those who favor the idea of eternal torments for souls who die in original sin alone, they cannot be censored for holding this extreme position which is in fact opposed to the CCC (the mind of the Church). However, even though the CCC is silent on Limbo, it would be consistent with its overall teaching and tradition to surmise that the Church does not consign the souls who may die in original sin alone to the hell of unquenchable fire.

In other words, such souls are either in Limbo or in Heaven, they are not in the hell of unquenchable fire.

tornpage wrote:
As to the inconsistency or "schizophrenia," the symptom that had my focus was not on "God predestines no one to hell." It was on Florence saying those who depart with either "mortal sin" or "original sin alone" are in "hell," with the latter subject to a lesser punishment. The CCC says only those with "mortal sin" are in hell. That's a bald inconsistency.
No it is NOT a “bald inconsistency”; for the CCC does NOT say “only those with "mortal sin" are in hell”, it says “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end”. It is logical fallacy to conclude from this that the CCC says that “only those with ‘mortal sin’ are in hell” because it is silent on the fate of those who may die in original sin alone.

As I demonstrated, the CCC is referring to the hell of unquenchable fire while remaining silent (in this section on “Hell”) on the fate of unbaptized infants. In other words, Limbo is a reformable theological construct - a possible logical solution to an unresolved difficult dilemma; and the CCC, as it would teach in its section on Baptism, chose to focus instead on the reasons for hope in the mercy of God when addressing the non-revealed fate of unbaptized infants, while not denying at all the de fide teaching that says those who die in original sin alone depart immediately for hell, to suffer the lesser “punishments of different kinds”.

In fact, the CCC confirms in #1035 that “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs”, which is at least an indirect reference to the fate of those who may depart in original sin alone.

tornpage wrote:
Tornpage wrote: Florence, not the CCC, is infallible and de fide. I'll follow Florence.
Meaning you are going to interpret Florence as you see fit while alleging that the magisterium has created an inconsistency with its development in doctrine on the hope of salvation which, you say, calls into question the de fide teaching of Florence on the fate of those who die in original sin alone.

And, as we see, you created your own inconsistency by embellishing what the CCC actually teaches and by drawing on a logical fallacy that in the end simply equates the possibility of salvation for those who would otherwise be consigned to hell for original sin alone as a fairly tale as preposterous as the myth of Santa Claus.

That old Feeneyite stubbornness can be hard to shake.

Perhaps you should revisit what Florence said, and what it did not say when examining what else the Church has to say when filling in the gaps and providing additional perspective. For example, when Florence declared that “the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell”, does she mean to say that infants who may die in original sin alone are “judged” by God at their particular judgment and are condemned to the punishment of hell, “but to undergo punishments of different kinds"?

Such distinctions are important when drawing the distinction between personal sin and hereditary sin, and the respective punishments due to each; and, also when considering the universal salvific will of God with respect to the latter, which the Church has every right to consider and develop without being accused of being inconsistent with Florence.

Though the Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues is not the CCC, its teaching where it says “All children who die before attaining the age of reason, or those who though adults never had the use of reason … are not judged ... at the moment of death” is most instructive, for it places the CCC’s teaching on hell, and its silence on the fate of unbaptized infants, as well as its teaching on the hope of salvation, into greater context.

The same Catechism of the Summa Theologica makes a further distinction that is left unsaid by Florence, where the former says “Those that have received baptism immediately go to heaven; whereas those who have not received this sacrament go to a place reserved for them which is called Limbo.”

Well, to your point, isn’t Limbo in Hell? Yes, it is; commonly understood on the outermost fringe or edge where, it also seems, the devil has no dominion over the souls who may reside there, for we are allowed to believe that these souls have no knowledge of Satan (at least none that can effect their happiness), even if they are aware of their loss that does not seem to cause any suffering or even sorrow.

And it is at this point you can create another “bald inconsistency” by citing the Canon of Carthage found in a “certain codex” which says:

For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].
Is this not a clear “magisterial” affirmation that those who depart with original sin alone “will be a partner of the devil”, for “For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left”? In fact, was this not magisterial reason enough for others to assert that the Church ratified as “de fide” the teaching of St. Augustine?

If so, isn’t that how we should interpret the Council of Florence? What, do you mean to suggest there are certain aspects to the Canon of Carthage, the dogma of Florence and the CCC which are reformable and subject to further explication, and are even open to magisterial development?

Let’s face it, the canon’s “bald” reference to “Matt. 25:41,46” leaves no doubt: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"; “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

But it helps to place these passages into context by citing Matt. 25:41-46 in its entirety so we know who our Lord is talking about:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
That sounds like a "judgment", does it not? And if anyone wants to appeal to St. Augustine to explain how those who may depart in original sin alone (most notably unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped) fit into any of these categories that would warrant being made partners of the devil and cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, good luck with that.

And imagine that our Lord actually said “suffer not the children to come unto me”, by which He obviously meant to curse unbaptized infants (by default) with these words: "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”

That sounds like a "judgment".

And you ask me why the CCC does not mention unbaptized infants (those who may die in original sin alone) in its section on “Hell”?

What is remarkable about this particular Canon is that it makes the point, even indirectly, that Scripture/Revelation nowhere addresses the fate of unbaptized infants. The Canon, in other words, is reformable and simply repeats what was then (in "the present economy") the common but reformable doctrine; a doctrine that would stand for at least 800 years (and has never been condemned) where it was presumed that unbaptized infants are not only lost, but suffer the eternal torments of hell, though to a lesser degree (which is not much of a consolation to unbaptized infants, and the mentally handicapped).

Furthermore, the same Canon is also referenced in certain manuscripts (cited by Bishop Hefele), and reads:

Canon 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.”
So one cannot say that there is a middle place in heaven, but it is OK to say there is a certain place on the fringes of hell “where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant)”.

And so long as we avoid locating this place of eternal natural bliss in heaven, or between heaven and hell, we’re fine; and we can simply ignore that other “magisterial” affirmation that says “what Catholic will doubt that he [those who depart in original sin alone] will be a partner of the devil” and are condemned with the words: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

So Florence can definitely be read to mean that those who depart in original sin alone are eternally cursed as being partners with the devil, “but to undergo punishments of different kinds"; a “kind” that still includes the eternal torments of hell and being partners of the devil.

You will admit (I assume) that this aspect of the doctrine (the nature of the punishment) is reformable, and that it has undergone development. But when it comes to the actual fate of unbaptized infants, you seem to want to insist that the teaching of Florence declares that at least some infants, or the mentally handicapped, who die without water Baptism must, by magisterial logical necessity, immediately depart for the punishment of hell, otherwise, there wouldn’t be anyone you can think of who actually dies in original sin alone. And we can't have that, now can we?

Your real argument seems to be that “Limbo”, or the hellfire of eternally damned unbaptized infants (in either case – "the punishment of hell"), then becomes a null set, and my argument is “so what”? There is nothing “magisterial” about Limbo except to say it is an accepted common but reformable opinion that is not opposed to the faith, just as the eternal torments and the possibility of salvation for these same unbaptized infants is not opposed to the faith, and you have a real problem with the latter, while you do not seem to have a problem with the "reform" of the centuries long doctrine on eternal torments.

Your problem, the way I see it, is your refusal to accept the fact that the fate of unbaptized infants is an non-revealed reformable doctrine; meaning, it has never been definitively settled. And what is your argument to “prove” that Florence “settled” this question once and for all?

Your only argument is one of so-called logical deduction which says that if unbaptized infants have the hope of salvation, then the hell of Limbo (the “hell” of eternal natural bliss), or the hell of damned infants who are made partakers with the devil, would become “null sets”, and of course, Florence would not declare, so the fallacy goes, that those who die in original sin alone immediately depart for the punishment of hell, unless there exists flesh and blood categories of persons who actually die in original sin alone, and do not have just the potential for dying in original sin alone.

You simply refuse to consider that the infallible doctrine of Florence has both an irreformable and a reformable aspect to it; meaning, Florence neither confirms nor denies that such souls are allowed by God to die in original sin, but only that if they die in original sin (and it presumes this happens), it is de fide that they will depart immediately for the punishment of hell.

And no one denies that Florence reflects the common reformable doctrine which says unbaptized infants are presumed to be lost, but such “presumption” is in fact reformable and open to further development in “the present economy” .

Of course, I guess those souls who have been raised from the dead and Baptized do not fall into the “immediate” category of “those who die in original sin alone depart immediately for hell”. Do they? I guess they really didn’t “die”, but some of them were definitively buried. No “bald inconsistency” there, right?

What’s next, the “limbo of temporary death”?

Changing gears, I wonder, Tornpage, if then Cardinal Ratzinger wasn’t on to something when, as a private theologian, he said he would be in favor of abandoning the never-defined medieval theological construct called Limbo which, for all intents and purposes, represents a sort of natural “salvation” for unbaptized infants (just listen to Jehanne).

And, isn’t its designation as being a “part” of hell more myth than reality when we consider there is no suffering aspect of hell, not even mental anguish, that can effect those who reside in the “hell” of Limbo, a place of eternal natural happiness located in, but outside the reach of, “hell”?

Have we not created a non-hellish place of natural refreshment, light, peace and goodness right in the bowels of hell? Well, what's the alternative? Precisely, and that's what the Church has the courage and audacity to address.

Is this why Cardinal Ratzinger, and now Pope BXVI seems to want to avoid the subject of Limbo and focus on the real unresolved dilemma of the “punishment of hell” vs the mercy of God, and whether the demerit of Adam can have greater power than the merit of Christ, who said “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such”?

Is it really, or, when it comes to little children, is the kingdom of heaven only for those who are able to come to Him baptized in water and the Spirit, meaning they can never be baptized by the Spirit of Sanctification, who “blows where He wills”, without actual ablution; even though the Spirit of Sanctification is one and inseparable from the Laver of Regeneration and the Blood of Redemption, for each is inseparably linked one to the other for each speaks as one to the humanity of Christ – the source and immediate cause of our Redemption?

Isn't the Pope facing the implications of Florence and "punishment" for unbaptized infants more honestly than those who beat him up for daring to suggest that Limbo may not exist, when in all truth Limbo is a medieval accretion that, while certainly orthodox, also absolves the Church from delving into this matter with all the theological muster at her disposal? Is she wrong for formulating the doctrine of hope?

Only neanderthals such as Columba think so, but not you, so I am perplexed by your singular argument which appears to be a logical "magisterial" fallacy.

I wonder if those who tear their vestments in outrage have actually read past the first sentence to see what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said. Let’s review:

[6] Cardinal Ratzinger stated: “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation—I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of “limbo” if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed “limbo” also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.” (The Ratzinger Report, 147-148.)
As I said, has Limbo become the equivalent of salvation where any idea of “punishment” in any real sense has been abandoned?

Cardinal Ratzinger seems to have pushed all the right buttons, and as Pope, he definitely wants to set the open conflict in its true light. Limbo? Perhaps, but, in the present economy, the doctrine, she is a changin'’; in the true sense of organic development, notwithstanding the screech and howls from those smarter than the Church.

tornpage wrote:
One ex-Feeneyite to another: I no longer believe the Church exercises its solemn and infallible magisterium - or Our Lord makes divine revelations (same thing) - to engage in academic surmising about "null sets," do you?
Are you confusing divine revelation with the unknown fate of unbaptized infants? Do you resent the fact that the Church has the authority and the right to explore and develop the reformable aspects of the doctrine – and/or, do you wish to segregate the ordinary magisterium of the Church from its supreme magisterium, as if they can be opposed?

Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about. The Church exercises her infallible magisterium practically every day – the “solemn magisterium” qualification is a smokescreen, as if to say only that which is defined or made definitive is “infallible”. There are reformable aspects to the fate of unabaptized infants that the Church has every right to develop, without being accused of error when she presents her teaching to the universal Church - and I do not hesitate to say that the teaching is “infallible” in the sense that the Church (the “Holy See”) is infallible -- and cannot be stained with error by being opposed to her own immutable traditions or to irreformable doctrines.

“We are the guarantor of this”.

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:24 pm

MRyan wrote:
Canon 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.”
So one cannot say that there is a middle place in heaven, but it is OK to say there is a certain place on the fringes of hell “where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant)”.

And so long as we avoid locating this place of eternal natural bliss in heaven, or between heaven and hell, we’re fine; and we can simply ignore that other “magisterial” affirmation that says “what Catholic will doubt that he [those who depart in original sin alone] will be a partner of the devil” and are condemned with the words: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Well, at least you're honest. However, the canons at Carthage were confirmed by at least two sitting Popes:

“Pope Zosimus of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

“The same teacher Zosimus trained us, who, when he spoke to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)

“We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

This is the beginning of his Tractoria and it tells us all things are referred to the African bishops, which is why the Council of Carthage received this great praise:

“Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Carthage [418 AD], we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136), and,

“But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)

You're goal is to pit Saint Augustine against Saint Thomas and say that the later taught something that was incompatible with the former, who said:

“And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.” (Augustine, Enchiridion 93)

We can imagine Augustine's "mildest punishment" to be the Limbo of Saint Thomas or at least very close. Paragraph #1261 says that we are "allowed to hope," which, of course, is completely different than saying that there "is hope."
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:17 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Canon 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.”
So one cannot say that there is a middle place in heaven, but it is OK to say there is a certain place on the fringes of hell “where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant)”.

And so long as we avoid locating this place of eternal natural bliss in heaven, or between heaven and hell, we’re fine; and we can simply ignore that other “magisterial” affirmation that says “what Catholic will doubt that he [those who depart in original sin alone] will be a partner of the devil” and are condemned with the words: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Well, at least you're honest. However, the canons at Carthage were confirmed by at least two sitting Popes
Should I take that as a compliment when you say at least I am being honest? Have I ever given you a reason to believe that I am being less than honest?

Furthermore, I note once again that you want to pick and choose from my post, while ignoring what I actually said.

It does NOT matter that Carthage and its canons (to include the variously numbered and sometimes missing subject canon) "were confirmed by at least two sitting Popes" when what was confirmed does NOT change the fact that the section of the subject canon which cites Matt. 25:41,46 has never been held by the Church as a binding infallible declaration that holds that infants deserve the eternal torments of hell where they partake, and are subject to, the devil; otherwise the doctrine of Limbo would never have been allowed to develop as a possible solution.

This aspect of the subject canon is reformable, and no one disputes that, at least no one who is "honest". Neither did Carthage solemnly declare that unbaptized infants cannot have the hope of salvation, even if it presumed that they are lost -- for in "the present economy" no other means of salvation exists other than Baptism that can assure them of salvation.

So what is your point?

Jehanne wrote:
You're goal is to pit Saint Augustine against Saint Thomas and say that the later taught something that was incompatible with the former, who said:

“And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.” (Augustine, Enchiridion 93)
No, it is NOT my goal "to pit Saint Augustine against Saint Thomas and say that the later taught something that was incompatible with the former" when neither of their respective doctrines is opposed to the faith.

However, you are the one who seems to want to pretend that their respective doctrines are actually "close" to being the same, while they are anything but "close"; unless the difference between eternal sense suffering and sorrow and the total lack thereof, and the difference between being made a partaker with the devil in the fires of hell and being segregated from the devil completely, is a distinction without much of a difference. The only thing "close" is the fact of hell, though the limbo of hell is not very "hellish".

Nice try. For Augustine, the idea of a place of natural happiness in hell devoid of any sense suffering or sorrow simply did not exist. "Mild" eternal torments in hellfire with the devil are still eternal torments.

Jehanne wrote:Paragraph #1261 says that we are "allowed to hope," which, of course, is completely different than saying that there "is hope."
If we are allowed to hope, it is only because there are solid grounds for hope - meaning there IS hope.

Stop trying to re-write the CCC, and just accept what it says..
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:36 pm

You're free to see some fundamental difference between Saint Thomas & Saint Augustine; I don't. However, no sense in repeating what I have wrote elsewhere:
Infants who die without Sacramental Baptism in Water do not go to Heaven.

With all of the intellectual dishonestly on the part of so-called "traditional Catholics" regarding the recent statements from the International Theological Commission (ITC) (a bunch of intellectuals who got together and said, "Well, we don't believe in that..."), it is high-time for someone to state, explicitly, what the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church teaches on the fate of infants who die without Baptism:

They do not go to Heaven. This is de fide; this has always been de fide. What has been in the realm of theological opinion is where, exactly, do these infants go. That they do not go to Heaven has never been the issue; they don't. Where exactly, then, do they go? There have been two opinions on this:

1) Infants who die without Baptism go to the Hell of Suffering. This is the view of Saint Augustine, who taught that infants would go to Hell proper but would only experience the "mildest of punishments," such that they would want to continue to exist, as compared to some of the other damned who might prefer annihilation. This view constituted the universal and common teaching of the Church, Popes and theologians included, for 800 hundred years, and as such, it is almost certainly de fide.

2) Infants who die without Baptism go to the Hell of Separation. This is the view of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle theologian, who taught that such infants would also go to Hell proper but would experience no "pain of the senses" and would instead enjoy a natural happiness for all time and eternity. Some theologians after Saint Thomas postulated that such infants would enjoy a perfect natural happiness for all eternity. Thomas' view gained widespread acceptance, only to be abandoned by "dissenters" in subsequent centuries, and was never formally endorsed by any Pope and/or Church Council.

The regional Council of Carthage infallibly pronounced on the fate of infants who die without Baptism:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my house there are many mansions': that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left. [cf. Matthew 25:41,46]” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Now some claim that the Council of Carthage, being a regional Council of the Church, was not infallible. However, St. Pope Zosimus published Carthage’s canons as his own, which made them infallible and binding upon the universal Church. This is referred to in the Council of Ephesus. Pope Zosimus’ Tractoria was sent to the whole world:

“Pope Zosimus of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

“The same teacher Zosimus trained us, who, when he spoke to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)

“We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

This is the beginning of his Tractoria and it tells us all things are referred to the African bishops, which is why the Council of Carthage received this great praise:

“Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Carthage [418 AD], we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136), and,

“But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)

What about #1261 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

What about it? The CCC changes nothing nor could it ever do so (it would be equivalent to claiming 2 + 2 = 5), no matter how poorly it expresses the Catholic Faith. Many so-called "authorities" claim that the CCC never talks about Limbo; not true, 'Limbo' appears in the Index. And, its sole reference is #1261. Are we "allowed to have hope" that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not conceived without original sin??? Paragraph 1261, if it is orthodox, refers to Limbo and the "way of salvation" would be salvation from the Hell of Suffering. In that respect, our Lord Jesus Christ's words certainly "allow us to hope" that children who die without Baptism escape the Hell of Suffering, instead passing into the Hell of Separation, even if the latter, per Saint Augustine, would involve the "mildest of punishments."

If the Pope told you that Paris, France no longer existed, would you believe him? How about the North American continent? Or Planet Earth? Yet, that is precisely how the press reacted to the Pope's supposed "approval" of the ITC's report. Limbo, the uppermost level of Hell exists, just as Paris, France exists. Pope Pius VI was quite explicit about this fact:

“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Denz. 1526).”

Perhaps #1261 is just making an historical observation?

This seems reasonable. The 16th-century theologian Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, in his commentary, on Thomas' Summa stated,

"that children still within the womb of their mother are able to be saved . . . through the sacrament of baptism that is received, not in reality, but in the desire of the parents."

A century earlier Jean Gerson, a prominent theologian, stated at the Council of Constance,

"women great with child, and their husbands, to use their prayers for their infant that is not yet born, that (if it be to die before it come to the grace of baptism with water) the Lord Jesus would vouchsafe to sanctify it beforehand with the baptism of his holy Spirit. Nay, who would not devoutly hope, that he will not despise the prayer of his humble servants that trust in him? This consideration is useful to raise devotion in the parents, and to ease their trouble of mind, if the child die without baptism; forasmuch as all hope is not taken away. But yet there is, I confess, no certainty exists without a revelation."

Neither Cajetan nor Gerson were condemned by the Church, although, the former had his opinions on infants who die without Baptism expunged by Pope St. Pius V. Nonetheless, Cardinal Cajetan was never formally censored, brought before the Roman Inquisition (as would occur with Galileo), forced to recant his views, burned alive at the stake for heresy, etc. No, instead, both he and Gerson ended their lives in full communion with the Church and with a full Mass of Christian Burial. With respect to infants dying without sacramental Baptism, both men were "allowed to hope," and to do so publicly.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a 12th-century theologian and a Doctor of the Church, wrote to a couple who had suffered a miscarriage,

“Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas also stated,

Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb. (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

Or, consider what happened to Saint Jehanne la Pucelle (aka, "Joan of Arc"):

Sixth Session, March 3, 1431:

Asked what was the age of the child at Lagny that she went to see,

She replied: The baby was three days old. And it was brought to Lagny to Notre Dame. And she was told that the maidens of the town were before [the statue of] Our Lady; and that she might like to go and pray to God and Our Lady that it might live. And she went there and prayed to God with the others. And finally life appeared in it, and it yawned three times; then it was baptised and immediately after died, and was buried in consecrated ground. For three days, they said, no life had appeared in the child; and it was as black as her tunic. But when it yawned, the colour began to come back. And she was with the maidens on her knees in front of [the statue of] Our Lady, offering prayers.

Asked if it were not said by the town that she had brought this about, and that it was by her intercession,

She replied: I never inquired.

The above testimony would reconcile #1261 with Catholic Tradition, in that we are "allowed to hope" that children who die without Baptism do, in fact, die with Baptism, if only by a miracle.

Is #1261 offering "good hope"?

Certainly not. As I have pointed out above, #1261 is not even listed in the "Heaven" section in the CCC's Index. The 1983 Code of Canon Law is, however, extensively referenced in the CCC, which has this to say:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1º the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2º there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Can. 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless after diligent investigation the baptism of the infant is established.

Can. 871 If aborted fetuses are alive, they are to be baptized insofar as possible.

If #1261 could be read as offering "good hope" let alone "certain hope" for an infant who dies without sacramental Baptism, then Canon 868 §2 would be a sin against charity, Canon 870 would be presumptuous, and Canon 871 would be unnecessary.

Null set theology, anyone?

The Council of Florence stated,

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

To say that all infants who die without Baptism are saved would be to say that the Council of Florence taught something which, in fact, never happens.

Saint Augustine vs. Saint Aquinas.

Without a doubt, Saint Augustine was of the clear understanding that infants who die without Baptism are forever destined to the Hell of Suffering, which means that they are destined to suffer some positive punishment for all time and Eternity, no matter how mild that punishment is going to be. It is also a historical fact that Saint Augustine's teachings and those of Carthage went undisputed within Catholic theology for 800 hundred years, until the time of the Medieval scholastics, when theologians began to abandon the universal and common teaching of Saint Augustine and Carthage. Given these facts and Saint Augustine's intimate proximity to the Council of Carthage, it is clear that his view is the de fide dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, and the scholastics, while having the best of intentions, simply erred. (They are, after all, human, aren't they?)

Does this mean that Saint Thomas was wrong? No, not really. Just as Saint Thomas did not have a perfect understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary's sinless nature, so too, the great Angelic Doctor embraced some theological novelties that were contrary to the defined dogmas of the Church, although, he did not see his ideas as such. (Hindsight is, after all, 20/20.) Still, Saint Thomas is an authority on many things, just not on all things.

Could it be that the Hell of Separation involves the mildest of the mildest positive punishments, that it is, for all practical purposes, the Limbo envisioned by Saint Thomas? Such seems like a reasonable possibility. After all, Saint Augustine and the Council of Carthage taught that unbaptized infants would be condemned to the Hell of Suffering, but they never defined how much suffering would occur for those unbaptized infants over the course of Eternity, and Saint Augustine made it clear that such infants still want to continue to exist.

While the infallible teaching of the Council of Carthage may be difficult for some to accept, such does nothing to change its immutable truths. Ultimately, "What is, is."

Additional Magisterial statements on the fate of infants who die without Baptism.

“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Pope St. Innocent, 414)

“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415)

“Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Pope St. Siricius, 385)

"The quality of an evil life begins with lack of faith, which takes its beginnings from the guilt of original sin. In it, each one begins to live in such a way that, before he ends his life, which is ended when freed from its bonds, if that soul has lived in the body for the space of one day or one hour, it is necessary that it suffer with that same body the endless punishments of Hell, where the devil with his angles will burn forever. […] Hold most firmly and never doubt that, not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the sacrament of holy baptism, must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of original sin." (St. Fulgentius, To Peter on the Faith 36, 70)

Unbaptized children are not detained in limbo save because they lack the state of grace. Hence, since the state of the dead cannot be changed by the works of the living, especially as regards the merit of the essential reward or punishment, the suffrages of the living cannot profit the children in limbo. (Summa Theologica, Suppl., q.71, a.7)

Although original sin is such that one person can be assisted by another on its account, nevertheless the souls of the children in limbo are in such a state that they cannot be assisted, because after this life there is no time for obtaining grace. (Summa Theologica, Suppl., q.71, a.7, ad 1)

Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love. (Summa Theologica, App., q.71, a.7, ad 1)

Condemned: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” (Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif -- Proposition 6)

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians." (Council of Florence)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death." (Catechism of Trent)

"Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned." (St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Explanation of Trent)

1891 Baltimore Catechism

Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Q. 642. Is it wrong to defer the baptism of an infant?

A. It is wrong to defer the baptism of an infant, because we thereby expose the child to the danger of dying without the Sacrament.

Pope Pius X Catechism

11 Q: When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?

A: Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?

A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q: Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?

A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

"All that we have said about the protection and care of natural life is with even greater reason true of the supernatural life, which the newborn child receives with baptism. In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason. And yet the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open. If therefore we remember that charity towards our neighbor obliges us to assist him in case of necessity; that this obligation is graver and more urgent according to the greatness of the good to be procured or the evil to be avoided, and according to the inability of the needy one to help himself; then it is easy to understand the importance of providing for the baptism of a child, devoid of the use of reason and in grave danger or even certainty of death." (Pope Pius XII, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December 20, 1951, p. 854)

Holy Office under Pope Pius XII -- 1958

"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature" a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible..." (Acta L, 114)

PETER LOMBARD AND THE SACRAMENTAL SYSTEM
IV. That suffering and faith and contrition take the place of baptism.

There are also some, as we said above, who receive the thing and not the sacrament. For those who shed their blood for the name of Jesus, even if they do not receive the sacrament, receive the thing. Wherefore Augustine: "Whoever die for the confession of Christ, even though they have not received the washing of regeneration, yet it suffices to remit their sins, as much as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism." — You have heard that suffering received for the name of Jesus takes the place of baptism. Not only does suffering take the place of baptism, but also faith and contrition, when necessity prevents the sacrament, as Augustine clearly shows when he says: "The blessed Cyprian, in the fourth book on Baptism, thinks that what was said to the thief who had not been baptized : 'This day shalt thou be with me in paradise,' affords no slight proof that suffering sometimes takes the place of baptism. I have considered this repeatedly and find that not only suffering for the name of Christ, but even faith and turning of heart, can supply what was lacking by baptism, if by chance, owing to the shortness of time, a man cannot be succored by celebrating the mystery of baptism. Nor indeed was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but for the sake of his crimes ; nor did he suffer, because he believed, but while he suffered, he believed. How much therefore can faith accomplish, even without the sacrament of visible baptism—is shown in the case of that thief, as the Apostle says: 'With the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation'; but this is accomplished invisibly, when not contempt for religion, but the pressure of necessity prevents the mystery of baptism." "And certainly baptism can take place when there is no turning of the heart; whereas turning of the heart can exist when baptism has not been received, but it cannot exist when baptism is despised; nor can it in any way be called turning of the heart to God, when the sacrament of God is despised." — So, here you have it, that not only suffering, but also faith and contrition confer remission, where the sacrament is not despised as is shown in the case of that thief, who not by suffering, but by faith was saved without baptism. But some say that Augustine retracted this. He did indeed retract his example but not his opinion. For he says: "When I said iri the fourth book that suffering can take the place of baptism, it was not enough that I mentioned the example of the thief, because it is uncertain that he was not baptized." It is established therefore that without baptism some are justified and saved. wherefore Ambrose on Valentinian : "'My bowels are in pain,' to employ prophetic eloquence, because I have lost him whom I was about to regenerate; yet truly he did not lose the grace, which he sought." But there seems a contradiction to these views in what the Lord says : "Unless a man be born again of water and of the holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."—For if this is generally true, the views expressed above do not seem to be true. But this is to be understood as applied to those who can be baptized and scorn it ; or else it is to be understood thus : unless a man be born again of water and of the holy Spirit, that is, by that regeneration, which is accomplished through water and the holy Spirit, he will not be saved. This regeneration moreover is accomplished not only through baptism, but also through penance and blood. Wherefore, the authority tells us, for this reason the Apostle said that "the foundation of baptism is plural, because there is baptism in water, in blood, and in penance." Moreover he does not say that the sacrament of baptism can be performed only in water, but that its virtue, that is, sanctification, can be given not only through water, but through blood or inner penance. Reason indeed urges this. For if baptism suffices for infants who are not able to believe, much more does faith suffice for adults willing but not able to be baptized. Wherefore Augustine : "Do you ask, which is greater: faith or water; I have no doubt what I should respond: faith. If therefore that which is less can sanctify, does not that which is greater? that is faith, of which Christ says: 'Whoever shall believe on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.' —But some say that no adult believes on Christ or has charity without baptism, unless he sheds his blood for the Lord, supporting their view with the subjoined testimonies. Augustine says: "From the time that the Saviour said ; 'Unless a man be born again of water and of the holy Spirit' etc., without the sacrament of baptism no one, except those who shed blood in the Church, can receive eternal life." The same : "We believe that no catechumen although dying in good works, has eternal life, except he die in martyrdom whereby the whole sacraments of baptism are completed." The same: "We believe that the way of salvation is only for the baptized."—But the statements he makes less fully here he supplements in the chapters quoted above; and for that reason these passages are to be thus understood, that only those who have time to be baptized and are not, are excepted from salvation. For if anyone having faith and charity wishes to be baptized, and cannot because prevented by necessity, the goodness of the Almighty will supply what has been lacking in the sacrament. For while he can perform it, he is bound, unless he do perform it; but when he is not able, but wishes to do so, God, who has not bound his power to sacraments, does not impute it to him. But that there is invisible sanctification in some without the visible sacrament, Augustine clearly teaches, saying in his commentary on Leviticus, "Invisible sanctification exists and benefits some without visible sacraments; but visible sanctification, which comes from the visible sacraments, can be present, but cannot benefit without the invisible. However the visible sacrament is not for that reason to be despised, because the one who despises it, cannot be invisibly sanctified. Hence Cornelius and those with him were baptized, although already sanctified by the holy Spirit. Nor is the visible sanctificatioh to be judged superfluous, because the invisible preceded it. Therefore the invisible sanctification without the visible can exist and benefit ; but the visible which is caused by the sacrament only, is not able to benefit without the invisible, since therein is its whole utility. Visible baptism did not benefit Simon Magus, because the invisible was lacking; but it benefited those in whom the invisible was present." Nor is another's faith so valuable to an infant, as his own to an adult. For the faith of the Church does not suffice for infants without the sacrament, because, if they die without baptism, even when they are being brought to baptism, they will be damned, as is proved by many authorities of the saints; on this point let one suffice. Augustine : "Maintain firmly that infants who either begin to live in their mothers' wombs, and die there, or born of their mothers pass from this life without the sacrament of baptism, must be punished with eternal torture, because although they have no sins of their own doing, yet they have inherited original sin from their conception in carnal concupiscence." And as infants who die without baptism, are numbered with the infidels, so those who are baptized are called faithful and are not separated from the fellowship of the faithful, when the Church prays for the faithful dead. They are faithful, therefore, not on account of their own virtue, but on account of the sacrament of faith. Wherefore Augustine: "An infant, although he has not yet that faith which depends upon the will of the believers, nevertheless has faith through the sacrament of that faith, that is, baptism ; for as the response is made that he believes, so also he is called faithful, not because he assents to the truth by his own judgment, but because he receives the sacrament of that truth."

The Great Means of Salvation & Perfection by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

Here it only remains for us to answer the object which is drawn from children being lost when they die before baptism, and before they come to the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved, it is objected, how is it that these children perish without any fault of their own, since God gives them no assistance to attain eternal salvation? There are two answers to this objection, the latter more correct than the former. I will state them briefly.

First, it is answered that God, by antecedent will, wishes all to be saved, and therefore has granted universal means for the salvation of all; but these means at times fail of their effect, either by reason of the unwillingness of some persons to avail themselves of them, or because others are unable to make use of them, on account of secondary causes (such as the death of children), whose course God is not bound to change, after having disposed the whole according to the just judgment of his general Providence; all this is collected from what St. Thomas says. Jesus Christ offered His merits for all men, and instituted baptism for all; but the application of this means of salvation, so far as relates to children who die before the use of reason, is not prevented by the direct will of God, but by a merely permissive will; because as He is the general provider of all things, He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.

The second answer is, that to perish is not the same as not to be blessed: since eternal happiness is a gift entirely gratuitous; and therefore the want of it is not a punishment. The opinion, therefore, of St. Thomas is very just, that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss; not the pain of sense, he says, “because pain of sense corresponds to conversion to creatures; and in original sin there is not conversion to creatures” (as the fault is not our own), “and therefore pain of sense is not due to original sin;” because original sin does not imply an act. Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: “When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself (believe me) in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say.” And in another place he writes that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: “Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works.” This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Children will be sentenced by the just Judge neither to the glory of heaven nor to punishment.” St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: “The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness.”

And as far as relates to the pain of loss, although these children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas, who had reflected most deeply on this point, teaches that no one feels pain for the want of that good of which he is not capable; so that as no man grieves that he cannot fly, or no private person that he is not emperor, so these children feel no pain at being deprived of the glory of which they were never capable; since they could never pretend to it either by the principles of nature, or by their own merits. St. Thomas adds, in another place, a further reason, which is that the supernatural knowledge of glory comes only by means of actual faith, which transcends all natural knowledge; so that children can never feel pain for the privation of that glory, of which they never had a supernatural knowledge. He further says, in the former passage, that such children will not only not grieve for the loss of eternal happiness, but will, moreover, have pleasure in their natural gifts; and will even in some way enjoy God, so far as is implied in natural knowledge and in natural love: “Rather will they rejoice in this, that they will participate much in the divine goodness, and in natural perfections.” And he immediately adds that although they will be separated from God as regards the union of glory, nevertheless “they will be united with Him by participation of natural gifts; and so will even be able to rejoice in Him with a natural knowledge and love.”

Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues, O.P. 1922

XLVIIL OF THE PLACE OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT JUDGED, VIZ., OF THE LIMBO OF INFANTS

(A) Are there any human beings who at the moment of death are not judged?

Yes. All children who die before attaining the age of reason, or those who though adults never had the use of reason (LXIX. 6).

Is there any allotment at all as regards infants and those who have not had the use of reason?

Yes, but this is not by reason of their merits or demerits; and it is not made by way of judgment. It comes about by the fact that some have received baptism and others have not. Those that have received baptism immediately go to heaven; whereas those who have not received this sacrament go to a place reserved for them which is called Limbo.

OF THE LIMBO OF INFANT

(B) Is Limbo distinct from purgatory and hell?

Yes, because these two latter are places where punishment is inflicted for personal sins (LXIX. 6).

Do infants who have died without baptism suffer the pain of loss in Limbo?

Yes, to a certain degree, for they know they are deprived of the vision of God; but this has not the character of torture such as those in hell suffer (Appendix, 1.2).

Whence arises this difference as regards the pain of loss?

It comes from this, that although they know they are deprived of the vision of God, they also know that this is not by reason of any personal sin but by reason of their being born of Adam, who sinned (ibid.).

For them, then, there is no horrible worm that gnaws their souls such as torments the damned in hell?

No. But they live in a state without any kind of suffering or sadness, except that they are conscious of that supreme happiness which would have been theirs had the merits of the redemption been applied to them and which they will never have, not by any fault on their part but because the inscrutable counsels of God have arranged it so (ibid.).

(c) Do the souls of these infants know the mysteries of the redemption?

Most certainly.

Have they the light of faith?

No, they have not faith in the sense of that interior supernatural light perfecting the mind whereby in a certain intimate manner it penetrates revealed mysteries and generates in the soul a strong desire towards them; they know these mysteries very much in the same way as those who cannot help but assent to the truth of the divine mysteries revealed by God, but who are not drawn by an impulse of grace to cling supernaturally to these mysteries, and as a consequence they do not penetrate the intimate meaning of them.

Besides this Limbo of the souls of children who die before baptism, is not mention made of another Limbo in the language of the Church?

Yes, it is that Limbo where formerly the just were detained, that is, those in whom there was no personal hindrance as regards entrance into heaven, but who had to await the coming of the Redeemer (LXIX. 7).

Is there anyone now in this Limbo of the just?

Since the day when Jesus Christ at the moment of His death descended there and left it on the day of His Resurrection, bringing with Him all the souls of the just, this place ceased to be occupied by those for whom it was primarily destined; but it may be that since then it is the place where children go who die without baptism, so in this case it would be the same as the Limbo of infants.

Sensus fidei

"The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the people of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium) and obeying it, receives not a merely human word but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The people unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment and applies it more fully in daily life." (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, #12)

That infants who die without sacramental Baptism or without conditional Baptism within a day of their deaths or without martyrdom in the Name of Christ do not go to Heaven was a dogma that was universally taught and believed for centuries on end, therefore, it must be true, if Catholicism is, indeed, true. It was also universally taught and believed that the desire of the infant's parents, the Church, or anyone else was insufficient to bring that child into Paradise without the actual reception of sacramental Baptism in Water.

De fide ecclesiastica

"Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." (Professio Fidei, CDF)

Of course, what applies to the present Magisterium must also apply to past Magisteriums:

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees. (Council of Florence, Session 8 -- 22 November 1439)

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

What about Pope Pius IX?

Pope Pius IX said, “…anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis)” Note the plural; Pius IX is hardly discounting the theology of the Council of Carthage and Saint Augustine with respect to infants who die without Baptism.

What about aborted unborn babies?

Per Pope Sixtus V, they go to Hell:

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment "do not kill" was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and has taken away the service to God by His creature? Who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty? Who will not abhor the cruelty and unrestrained debauchery of impious men who have arrived into such a state of mind that they procure poisons in order to extinguish the conceived fetuses within the viscera, and pour them out, trying to provoke by a nefarious crime a violent and untimely death and killing of their progeny. Finally who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the crimes of those who with poisons, potions and evil actions sterilize women or impede that they conceive or give birth by pernicious medicines and drugs? Sorcerers and evil magicians says the Lord to Saint Moses, you will not suffer, allow and tolerate to live: because they oppose overly shamefully against God's will and, as St Jerome says, while nature receives seed, after having received nurtures it, nurtured body distinguishes in members, meanwhile in the narrowness of the uterus the hand of God is always at work who is Creator of both body and soul and who molded, made and wanted this child and meanwhile the goodness of the Potter, that is of God, is impiously and overly despised by these people. Saint Ambrose says that it is no small and trivial gift of God to give children in order to propagate mankind. It is a Divine gift the fecundity of childbearing woman and at the same time by this cruel and inhuman crime parents are deprived of their offspring that they have engendered; the engendered children of their life; mothers of the rewards of maternity and marriage; earth of its cultivators; the world of those who would know it; the Church of those that would make it grow and prosper and be happy with an increased number of devoted faithful. Therefore for a good reason the Sixth Synod of Constantinople has decreed that persons who give abortive medicine and those who receive and use poisons that kill fetuses are subject to punishment applied to murderers and it was sanctioned by the old Council of Lleida that those that were preoccupied to kill fetuses conceived from adultery or would extinguish them in the wombs of mothers with potions, if afterwards with repentance would recur to the goodness and meekness of the Church, should humbly weep for their sins for the rest of their lives and if they were Clerics, they should not be allowed to recuperate their ministry and they are subject to all Ecclesiastic law's and profane law's grave punishments for those who nefariously plot to kill fetuses in the uterus of childbearing women or try to prevent women from conceiving or try to expel the conceived fetuses from the womb. (Pope Sixtus V, Effraenatam)

And, of course, the First Vatican Council stated:

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Likewise, the Second Vatican Council stated,

Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (Lumen Gentium, 25)

Of course, what applies to the present Popes must also apply to the past ones.

Can angels baptize the unborn?

Sure, why not? We have already demonstrated (from Saint Thomas' teachings) that they can baptize those who have been born, as they can be in multiple places at the same time, which, according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, means that they can exist outside of time (and, by extension, outside of space.) So, it stands to reason that angels, who are not bound by time & space, can baptize the unborn. Such a grace is, however, no doubt extraordinarily rare.

Further reading.

Search for "Circling the Square":

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/correspondence

St. Benedict Center -- Still River

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/31-point-january-2001.html
http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/30-point-january-2006.html

St. Benedict Center -- Richmond

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-141.html
http://catholicism.org/the-limbo-of-the-infants.html

In conclusion.

It is heretical and absurd to say that all children who end this life without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven, for this is definitively not what the Church taught; likewise, it is absurd (and, perhaps, even heretical) to say that there can be no exceptions whatsoever, even ones involving a miracle.

Just because #1261 says "hope" does not mean that such is a "good hope":

Condemned Error: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:04 am

Mike,

Close to fifty (50) paragraphs, but still not close to an answer to two simple questions.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

The questions (with perhaps a dash of added flourish) were: a) is Pope Eugene exercising his charism of infallibility to entertain the academic question of what would theoretically happen if souls were to die in mortal or original sin, and therefore describing a "null set" of people that doesn't exist, or is he "defin[ing] and revealing a truth from God that has some correspondence to what actually happens in His creation, and therefore describing real souls that really go to hell; and, b) if the latter, who are the souls who depart in "original sin alone" who go to hell?

I realize my subjecting the teachings of the Church to rational or logical scrutiny troubles you, but be that as it may, I take the Lord at His word:

Isaiah 1:18

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD . . .

Indeed. The Truth has nothing to fear, and will be vindicated.

Anyway, as to my questions. I'll be darned if I can garner an answer from those fifty (50) or so paragraphs. I did get a "so what?" if it was a "null set." Well, it's a big so what to me if Pope Eugene were "defin[ing]" something that is in reality undefined (whereby I reference the waffling "could be" or "could be not" a "null set," which appears to be your approach in those fifty(50) or so paragraphs); actually, it's more of an absurdity. But anyway, your unconcern over whether it is or is not a "null set" doesn't answer my question.

Want another crack? Or should I pick up my marbles and go home?

In the hope of the former: is Pope Eugene speaking of existing reality when he "define[s] - odd language for addressing a hypothetical "null set" - that "the souls who depart this life in . . . original sin alone . . . go straightway to hell . . . to undergo punishment[]"?

In the hope of a direct answer to that one, I'll repeat the next one: who are these souls who depart this life in original sin alone and go to hell to suffer punishment?

Shoot, if you say Pope Eugene is merely being philosophical/academic, would you indulge me and speculate as to who could possibly go to hell with "original sin alone"?

I've already tipped my hand and told you it has to be a person incapable of responsible moral choice, like an infant or mentally deficient adult. An adult who receives actual graces and can exercise responsible choice dies in personal mortal sin, or he doesn't, and ends up in heaven - in my humble view.

What say you this time?



tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:47 am


How about the Catholic mother who loses her baby through miscarriage? Is the mother's desire for her baby to be baptized applicable and valid to save it? Only God's infinite mercy and infinite justice will determine that. That is why if we choose to pray and hope for Salvation that this hope provides us with earthly comfort rather than possible despair for the helpless souls. We should never limit God's will, justice and mercy.
George Brenner
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:30 am

Mike.

Is it not a tad uncharitable that in attempting to answer a couple of simple questions -which pertain more to logic than faith- you resort to using such a long litany containing a high percentage of irrelevancies without actually answering any of the questions? (Just making you aware that this hasn't gone unnoticed here either and could be understood by those who see apparent contradictions in present teaching wityh that of previous, that there really is no answer that could credibly reconcile those contradictions with logic and reason).
Anyway... There are quite a few points amid that litany which contain good material for other threads but for now I will be content to highlight this one; your assertion that;

MRyan wrote:

and for those who favor the idea of eternal torments for souls who die in original sin alone, they cannot be censored for holding this extreme position which is in fact opposed to the CCC (the mind of the Church).

Is this true? Aren't those who hold such "extreme" positions against the mind and will of the Church actually already censored?
Lumen Gentium says,
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."

I see other inconsistancies in your reply to Tornpage but will leave it here for now in the hope that you will be able to devote more time to providing answers to his questions. There'd be no harm in acknowledging that you do not have the answers, but if you are going to claim that you do, those answers would need to be real answers.
columba
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:06 am

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Close to fifty (50) paragraphs, but still not close to an answer to two simple questions.
I answered your two simple questions, you simply did not like the answers. And yes, I knew I was probably wasting my breadth, long-winded as it may be.

Neither did you respond to my pointing out your embellishment of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by forcing it to say what it did not actually say. Yours is the classic logical fallacy that has you positing that since the CCC in its section on "Hell" mentions only those who commit mortal sins in the context of those deserving the hell of unquenchable fire, then, you "logically and rationally" conclude, only those in mortal sin go to hell.

Nice try - it didn't work, even though I am wasting my breadth. I can only use my crayons to draw you a picture, but I can't force you to confront your logical fallacy.

You know quite well that the CCC does not deny that those who die in original sin alone go to hell, but in #1261 it simply places the fate of unbaptized infants in the hands of God while telling us she has reasons to hope that the mercy and merit of our Lord has greater power to remove the demerit of Adam than has the power of Satan to lay claim to these same non-regenerated infants.

tornpage wrote:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."
The questions (with perhaps a dash of added flourish) were: a) is Pope Eugene exercising his charism of infallibility to entertain the academic question of what would theoretically happen if souls were to die in mortal or original sin, and therefore describing a "null set" of people that doesn't exist, or is he "defin[ing] and revealing a truth from God that has some correspondence to what actually happens in His creation, and therefore describing real souls that really go to hell;
Once again, whether or not the infallible dogmatic prescription on the fate of those who die in original sin alone would represent a "null set" if unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped are given the hope of salvation is irrelevant for the simple fact that IT HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED how God might save them apart from water Baptism.

In other words, while it has been revealed that those who die in original sin alone depart immediately for hell, it HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED that God cannot provide the grace of baptism apart from actual ablution; and neither has it been revealed how God might accomplish this.

Despite the fact that Jehanne's new found friend Fr. Harrison rejects the "de fide" claim, Jehanne arrogantly and falsely says that it is de fide that infants who die without water baptism are lost [the implications for the Church being quite clear], and I know you know better than to say something as ignorant as that, though you and I agree that is its de fide that infants who die without the grace of baptism are lost.

The question of whether they can be saved by an extraordinary means remains open; meaning (my crayons are out) it has has NEVER been settled, even if the common opinion presumes their loss simply because the Church knows of no other way in the present economy that is open to them that can assure their salvation. The Church still doesn't know for certain, but she now has reasons for hope where heretofore hope was not generally entertained except by a few theologians.

Am I correct in this, or not? If so, why are you trying to force Eugene IV to say that because all of those who die in original sin alone are lost, then there MUST be non-baptized infants or the mentally handicapped in hell, about whom God must say:

"Suffer the little children, and forbid them to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is not for such."

And, at their final "judgment" (the same souls the "Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas" says are not "judged"), they will be joined with their resurrected bodies only to hear the words of our Lord:

"I never knew you: depart from me" (Matt. 7:23).

So why do you refuse to confront the truth of what I say that places the dogmatic prescription into context when the Church considers the possibility of alternative means that may be open to infants other than those means that we know are not open to them, at least not "in the present economy"?

Why do you refuse to face the FACT that the final end of unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED, and the fact that Pope Eugene IV defined that all of those who die in mortal sin and in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains, changes NONE of that.

Was Pope Eugene IV open to a private revelation that told him that God will NOT save unbaptized infants or the mentally handicapped apart from water Baptism, and has this private revelation become an infallible teaching of the Church because if it were not true, then the possibility remains open that there are no souls who die in original sin alone?

But if it remains only a possibility, it is not still de fide that those who depart in original sin alone are eternally lost?

tornpage wrote:
and, b) if the latter, who are the souls who depart in "original sin alone" who go to hell?
Unbaptized infants and unbaptized mentally handicapped adults.

tornpage wrote:I realize my subjecting the teachings of the Church to rational or logical scrutiny troubles you, but be that as it may, I take the Lord at His word:

Isaiah 1:18

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD . . .
Indeed. The Truth has nothing to fear, and will be vindicated.
I wouldn't call reasoning by logical fallacy "rational or logical scrutiny".

tornpage wrote:
Anyway, as to my questions. I'll be darned if I can garner an answer from those fifty (50) or so paragraphs. I did get a "so what?" if it was a "null set." Well, it's a big so what to me if Pope Eugene were "defin[ing]" something that is in reality undefined (whereby I reference the waffling "could be" or "could be not" a "null set," which appears to be your approach in those fifty(50) or so paragraphs); actually, it's more of an absurdity. But anyway, your unconcern over whether it is or is not a "null set" doesn't answer my question.

Want another crack? Or should I pick up my marbles and go home?

In the hope of the former: is Pope Eugene speaking of existing reality when he "define[s] - odd language for addressing a hypothetical "null set" - that "the souls who depart this life in . . . original sin alone . . . go straightway to hell . . . to undergo punishment[]"?
Pope Eugene is speaking of existing reality when he defined that all of those who die in original sin alone depart immediately for hell, because no other reality that can assure an infant's salvation is known, except the reality of water Baptism.

It is also existing reality that God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end.

It is also existing reality that Pope Eugene IV simply does not know (with any magisterial certitude) if, as even St. Ambrose said, these souls CAN have the honor of the kingdom - the pope only knows what is required for salvation, and the fate of those who do not meet those requirements.

It is also existing reality that the Church tells us that she has reasons to hope that there is a way open for these same unbaptized souls to receive the grace of baptism, though she cannot assure us of this means, or of their salvation.

The authentic, living and ordinary magisterium of the Church is THE existing reality.

tornpage wrote:In the hope of a direct answer to that one, I'll repeat the next one: who are these souls who depart this life in original sin alone and go to hell to suffer punishment?
I can repeat this until the cows come home, and I can hear them mooing.

tornpage wrote:Shoot, if you say Pope Eugene is merely being philosophical/academic, would you indulge me and speculate as to who could possibly go to hell with "original sin alone"?
It is not my problem that you can't seem to differentiate between infallible and reformable aspects to a given doctrine, and because you can't, you go in circles with your logical fallacy and call it "logic".

tornpage wrote:I've already tipped my hand and told you it has to be a person incapable of responsible moral choice, like an infant or mentally deficient adult. An adult who receives actual graces and can exercise responsible choice dies in personal mortal sin, or he doesn't, and ends up in heaven - in my humble view.

What say you this time?
I've said enough in what must now be 70 paragraphs.

No need to pick-up up your marbles, they just need some re-arranging. And no, you can't go home.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:35 am

columba wrote:Mike.

Is it not a tad uncharitable that in attempting to answer a couple of simple questions -which pertain more to logic than faith- you resort to using such a long litany containing a high percentage of irrelevancies without actually answering any of the questions? (Just making you aware that this hasn't gone unnoticed here either and could be understood by those who see apparent contradictions in present teaching wityh that of previous, that there really is no answer that could credibly reconcile those contradictions with logic and reason).
It is not "uncharitable" in the least to identify the inherent flaws in Tornpage's "logic", and it is precisely because he ignores the "faith" in the form of Church teaching (her whole body of teaching on this subject) and tries to argue strictly from so-called "logic" that he ends up placing words in the CCC it did not say, and creates a straw-man "null set" argument that does not take into consideration the critical distinctions between the reformable and irreformable aspects of a given doctrine, and how Truth does not change simply because the reformable aspect leaves the question of the final fate of non-water baptized infants open.

columba wrote:Anyway... There are quite a few points amid that litany which contain good material for other threads but for now I will be content to highlight this one; your assertion that;

MRyan wrote:

and for those who favor the idea of eternal torments for souls who die in original sin alone, they cannot be censored for holding this extreme position which is in fact opposed to the CCC (the mind of the Church).
Is this true? Aren't those who hold such "extreme" positions against the mind and will of the Church actually already censored?

Lumen Gentium says,
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."
Yes, we agree, but I am speaking of being "censored" in the more formal common parlance for being opposed to a revealed or definitive truth. The Church, in other words, does not normally "censor" someone for dissenting from a non-revealed or non-definitive teaching, unless the dissent is causing harm or scandal to the faith or the Church. But, as you suggest, dissenting from the authentic teaching authority of the Church brings with it its own censor.

In other words, I doubt if the Holy Office reads this forum or Jehanne's "blog".

There are also legitimate reasons for dissent, none of which include, however, accusations of magisterial "error" in its universal ordinary teachings on faith and morals. Not being able to reconcile a given doctrine, law or discipline in one's own mind with tradition is a far cry from accusing the Church of heresy and public error on matters of faith and salvation.

It may be OK to accuse the CCC of unintentional "error" because it is not infallible in all aspects, but it is not OK, IMHO, to accuse the Church in the same CCC of teaching heresy or of being opposed to her own dogmas.

columba wrote:I see other inconsistencies in your reply to Tornpage but will leave it here for now in the hope that you will be able to devote more time to providing answers to his questions. There'd be no harm in acknowledging that you do not have the answers, but if you are going to claim that you do, those answers would need to be real answers.
My answers are very much "real". Pay attention and stop pretending that I did not answer the questions.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:12 pm

Mike,

Why do you refuse to face the FACT that the final end of unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED, and the fact that Pope Eugene IV defined that all of those who die in mortal sin and in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains, changes NONE of that.

I'll give your reply more time - I just read it - but I have one immediate comment - you don't have to use crayons, you can even use a stick if necessary. But that's not the comment.

The comment is, the two questions are a set and must be considered together. If Pope Eugene is defining that hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of "original sin alone" - and he is - then who is there?

You agree that the only possible ones who could be there are unbaptized infants and mentally deficient adults. So at least some of one or the other category IS IN HELL?

Before we move on can we agree on that last point - there are some souls in hell who are there receiving punishment for "original sin alone"?

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:19 pm

Columba,

Is it not a tad uncharitable that in attempting to answer a couple of simple questions -which pertain more to logic than faith- you resort to using such a long litany containing a high percentage of irrelevancies without actually answering any of the questions? (Just making you aware that this hasn't gone unnoticed here . . .

Glad I'm not the only one. But Mike's latest is more focused. We might get to the heart of the issue yet.

If I were in Ireland I'd buy you a beer . . . and then Simple Faith could buy us both a beer. Very Happy
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:17 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Why do you refuse to face the FACT that the final end of unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED, and the fact that Pope Eugene IV defined that all of those who die in mortal sin and in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains, changes NONE of that.
I'll give your reply more time - I just read it - but I have one immediate comment - you don't have to use crayons, you can even use a stick if necessary. But that's not the comment.

The comment is, the two questions are a set and must be considered together. If Pope Eugene is defining that hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of "original sin alone" - and he is - then who is there?
I hope you don't mind when I change your invisible "white" font to blue, though there is an obvious joke there I shall leave aside for now.

Tornpage, seriously, I can't help it if you just don't get it; for Pope Eugene IV did NOT define "that hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of 'original sin alone'", he defined that "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ..."

He also defined in Cantate Domino that "“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…”.

Does that mean he "defined" that because the Church does not know of or have another remedy that can be brought to them (in the present economy), that God cannot provide a remedy unknown to the Church (in the present economy)?

By your "logic", I guess so, and we all should be dancing to the "de fide" doctrines of the Church of Jehanne.

Your gratitude towards columba for taking your side in accusing me of avoiding the answer is for naught.

If neither of you can see the flaw in your embellished "interpretation" of a defined dogma, you are both blind as the proverbial bat, with your Catholic sonar that should help you avoid such pitfalls being turned off.

The ball is in your court to address your misrepresentation of what Pope Eugene IV actually defined. If you refuse to address and recognize your own logical inconsistency, there is no sense going on.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:06 pm

Mike,

Tornpage, seriously, I can't help it if you just don't get it; for Pope Eugene IV did NOT define "that hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of 'original sin alone'", he defined that "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ..."


In other words, the set of those who depart with original sin alone could be a "null set." Pretty emphatic and detailed language - "descend immediately to hell" - for a "null set."

I think that's ridiculous. Of course, that's not an argument. I will think on the "null set" issue, however, and keep my marbles warm.

I was inclined to pick them up and "depart" the game and refuse playing . . . not under your rules.

But my "departure" was only hypothetical. Very Happy

Thank you for confirming that you don't think he's saying there are souls in hell with original sin, and that you entertain the possibility it is a "null set."




tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:11 pm

Jehanne wrote:You're free to see some fundamental difference between Saint Thomas & Saint Augustine; I don't. However, no sense in repeating what I have wrote elsewhere:

Blah, blah, blah

Jehanne,

Seriously, thanks for studiously avoiding my responses you have no answer for, and flooding this thread with your blog “de fide” mile-long nonsense.

You simply refuse to be corrected by the Church, and for that, you’re on your own.

Just because #1261 says "hope" does not mean that such is a "good hope":

Condemned Error: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Yes, the same Pope who in the very same Encyclical declared:

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Btw, the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants includes the hope that they will be brought into the true Church of Christ by the grace of Baptism, apart from which there is no salvation.

But thanks again for flooding this thread with never-ending irrelevancies on a topic you told us you are through commenting on.

That's so funny.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:21 pm

If neither of you can see the flaw in your embellished "interpretation" of a defined dogma, you are both blind as the proverbial bat, with your Catholic sonar that should help you avoid such pitfalls being turned off.

No, I don't see the flaw. I say that Pope Eugene is defining that there are real souls who really depart with original sin alone who really go to hell.

That has now become the issue. As to my Catholic sonar . . . the documented musings of the CCC, and that theological commission or whatever it was, have no merit, or bearing, for me on that question beyond the reasonings contained in the documents.

So you may be right, and my Catholic sonar may be off.




tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:23 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Tornpage, seriously, I can't help it if you just don't get it; for Pope Eugene IV did NOT define "that hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of 'original sin alone'", he defined that "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ..."


In other words, the set of those who depart with original sin alone could be a "null set." Pretty emphatic and detailed language - "descend immediately to hell" - for a "null set."

I think that's ridiculous. Of course, that's not an argument. I will think on the "null set" issue, however, and keep my marbles warm.
There is no "in other words", for you do not get to redefine the dogmas of the Church by changing their words as columba does, by "inference", so that you can make an irrelevant point that supports your agenda.

THAT is the issue, and you have yet to confront the "reality" of what Pope Eugene IV actually defined, rather than what you "think" he defined by some "logical necessity".

Once again, Pope Eugene IV did NOT define "that hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of 'original sin alone'", he defined that "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ..."

tornpage wrote:I was inclined to pick them up and "depart" the game and refuse playing . . . not under your rules.

But my "departure" was only hypothetical. Very Happy
I know, but my "rules" are simple, either stick to the actual dogmatic definition and confront your embellishment thereof, or play the game with someone more sympathetic to such embellishments and private interpretations.

I think Columba is your man; he knows the game quite well.






MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:55 pm

tornpage wrote:
If neither of you can see the flaw in your embellished "interpretation" of a defined dogma, you are both blind as the proverbial bat, with your Catholic sonar that should help you avoid such pitfalls being turned off.

No, I don't see the flaw. I say that Pope Eugene is defining that there are real souls who really depart with original sin alone who really go to hell.

That has now become the issue. As to my Catholic sonar . . . the documented musings of the CCC, and that theological commission or whatever it was, have no merit, or bearing, for me on that question beyond the reasonings contained in the documents.

So you may be right, and my Catholic sonar may be off.
Yes it is off, and you need to turn it back on ... (it'll come on eventually, it always does).

Not only does Pope Eugene IV NOT define “that there are real souls who really depart with original sin alone who really go to hell”, he has no possible way, short of divine revelation, of knowing for certain that A) There are real souls in hell who really die in original sin alone, or B) God will NOT save such souls. He only infallibly knows what he actually defined as a revealed truth, that "the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ...".

In fact, even if he believed that “there are real souls who really depart with original sin alone who really go to hell” (and I’m sure he did) his private belief on this reformable aspect of the doctrine has nothing to do with his actual dogmatic definition and that which is actually irreformable.

Your appeal to Fr. Harrison’s arguments on the worthlessness of “that” International Theological Commission, you know, the one commissioned and approved by Pope BXVI, and the CCC, #1261, and Fr. Harrison’s novel “limbo” interpretation given to GS 22 when it is talking about bodily resurrection in the context of the divine life of the soul, doesn’t go very far with me, as you know.

I should probably address his arguments in more detail. I read all of them (again) just recently, and found his more recent arguments severely flawed, and even insulting to Catholics such as myself who don’t appreciate being labeled “papal loyalists” in the context of those allegedly engaging in “a naïve magisterial positivism” by holding “de facto infallible … whatever happens to be the latest doctrinal statement to emanate from Rome”, when extreme “papal loyalists” such as myself have the audacity to hold “as certainly true” those teachings presented by the CCC on doctrinal matters of salvation.

I’ve been accused of such irrelevant and insulting nonsense enough on this forum to simply dismiss it for what it is. Sure, there are such Catholics, but Fr. Harrison paints with too broad a brush.

I’ll return at some point and address the rest of Fr. Harrison’s arguments.

One more point:

The Latin copyright to the CCC is dated 1994. #1261 teaches:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The Encyclical of Pope JPII, Evangelium Vitae, dated “1995.03.25”, declares:

I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion … The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. (#99)
No correlation there between a major Encyclical of Pope JPII and the CCC? Sure, they are both talking about the “hope” of the hell of “Limbo”!

If not, we can just throw both worthless passages from these magisterially "weightless" and irrelevant documents in the trash, along with that worthless report by the ITC that was approved by Pope BXVI.

Bunch of phony “intellectuals” all of them – right, Jehanne!

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:00 am

I know, but my "rules" are simple, either stick to the actual dogmatic definition and confront your embellishment thereof, or play the game with someone more sympathetic to such embellishments and private interpretations.

We "stick" to the same dogmatic definition, only I see it as actually having a factual predicate, and you don't. For you, Pope Eugene could simply be describing a "null set," and no one actually departs this life in "original sin alone." For you, Pope Eugene may actually be making a definition regarding souls that do not exist.

My only "embellishment" is to take Pope Eugene at his word.

How is this different from the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire? Easy. You have an infallible statement of the solemn magisterium regarding baptism of desire in Trent's "or desire" for baptism regarding justification. You have an abundance of testimony in the fathers, in the Church's teaching office, in the teachings of its doctors such as St. Alphonsus, etc. supporting baptism of desire.

On this issue, it goes all the other way . . . my way. You have several statements of the solemn magisterium as to baptism being the "only remedy" for infants; you have an abundance of testimony in catechisms, in the theologians, going my way. The evidence, unlike on the issue of baptism of desire, is that the testimony and tradition supports my position.

Until the innovation of the CCC, JPII, and that theological commission or whatever it was. And it depends on the prior solemn definition being a "null set."

It's absurd.

Here's one of those prior statements of the solemn magisterium:

Council of Trent

Session Five

Decree Concerning Original Sin

4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.

Which "must be expiated in the laver of regeneration," to which the innovators add, "as far as we know," in "the present economy," etc. That language is an evasion of the truth, just like the gutting of a dogmatic definition to make it a definition of a "null set" that has no correspondence to actual souls in "the present economy," where some in the general "mass of perdition" go to hell with "original sin alone" because God will be glorified in His gratuitous election of a remnant in that mass to glory.

But of course my logic is flawed, right?

There is no flaw in my logic, but a disagreement in the definition of a term as it were: the meaning of Pope Eugene's infallible assertion. My conclusion follows logically and inexorably from his definition - unless you gut his definition into a "null set."

Why don't you, like you do on the issue of baptism of desire, show from the fathers, tradition, catechisms, theologians, the "mind of the Church" on the understanding of the fate of unbaptized infants - prior to the ravages and plunders of that understanding by the innovators you're bent on defending? And then compare me with one of the Feeneyites here you like to beat up on.

Like you're fond of saying, "good luck with that."
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:09 am

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

On the one hand, in many ways, the underpinning Christian theological principles seem to favour the salvation of unbaptised infants in accordance with God's universal salvific will.

Let's see how the "underpinning Christian theological principles" have dealt with the salvation of unbaptized infants re the "universal salvific will":

The Great Means of Salvation & Perfection by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

Here it only remains for us to answer the object which is drawn from children being lost when they die before baptism, and before they come to the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved, it is objected, how is it that these children perish without any fault of their own, since God gives them no assistance to attain eternal salvation? There are two answers to this objection, the latter more correct than the former. I will state them briefly.

First, it is answered that God, by antecedent will, wishes all to be saved, and therefore has granted universal means for the salvation of all; but these means at times fail of their effect, either by reason of the unwillingness of some persons to avail themselves of them, or because others are unable to make use of them, on account of secondary causes (such as the death of children), whose course God is not bound to change, after having disposed the whole according to the just judgment of his general Providence; all this is collected from what St. Thomas says. Jesus Christ offered His merits for all men, and instituted baptism for all; but the application of this means of salvation, so far as relates to children who die before the use of reason, is not prevented by the direct will of God, but by a merely permissive will; because as He is the general provider of all things, He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.

The second answer is, that to perish is not the same as not to be blessed: since eternal happiness is a gift entirely gratuitous; and therefore the want of it is not a punishment. The opinion, therefore, of St. Thomas is very just, that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss; not the pain of sense, he says, “because pain of sense corresponds to conversion to creatures; and in original sin there is not conversion to creatures” (as the fault is not our own), “and therefore pain of sense is not due to original sin;” because original sin does not imply an act. Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: “When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself (believe me) in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say.” And in another place he writes that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: “Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works.” This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Children will be sentenced by the just Judge neither to the glory of heaven nor to punishment.” St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: “The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness.”

And as far as relates to the pain of loss, although these children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas, who had reflected most deeply on this point, teaches that no one feels pain for the want of that good of which he is not capable; so that as no man grieves that he cannot fly, or no private person that he is not emperor, so these children feel no pain at being deprived of the glory of which they were never capable; since they could never pretend to it either by the principles of nature, or by their own merits. St. Thomas adds, in another place, a further reason, which is that the supernatural knowledge of glory comes only by means of actual faith, which transcends all natural knowledge; so that children can never feel pain for the privation of that glory, of which they never had a supernatural knowledge. He further says, in the former passage, that such children will not only not grieve for the loss of eternal happiness, but will, moreover, have pleasure in their natural gifts; and will even in some way enjoy God, so far as is implied in natural knowledge and in natural love: “Rather will they rejoice in this, that they will participate much in the divine goodness, and in natural perfections.” And he immediately adds that although they will be separated from God as regards the union of glory, nevertheless “they will be united with Him by participation of natural gifts; and so will even be able to rejoice in Him with a natural knowledge and love.”

How is the fate of unbaptized infants understood in light of God's antecedent will to save all? First answer, God provided water baptism as "a universal means to for the salvation of all," which unfortunately doesn't reach them but is not prevented from reaching them by God but other secondary causes (therefore His "universal salvific will" in regard to them is not violated because God has provided them the means, water baptism). Second answer, Limbo.

So much for "Christian theological principles seeming to favor" "in accordance with God's universal salvific will" salvation for unbaptized infants.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

On the other hand, however, it cannot be denied that there has been a rather longstanding doctrinal tradition (whose theological value is doubtless not definitive), which, in its concern to safeguard and not compromise other truths of the Christian theological edifice, has expressed either a certain reticence in this regard, or even a clear refusal to envisage the salvation of these infants.

Shocked
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:05 am

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

On the one hand, in many ways, the underpinning Christian theological principles seem to favour the salvation of unbaptised infants in accordance with God's universal salvific will.


Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

A warning (Monitum) of the Holy Office:

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfilment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.


tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:55 am

tornpage wrote:
I know, but my "rules" are simple, either stick to the actual dogmatic definition and confront your embellishment thereof, or play the game with someone more sympathetic to such embellishments and private interpretations.
We "stick" to the same dogmatic definition, only I see it as actually having a factual predicate, and you don't. For you, Pope Eugene could simply be describing a "null set," and no one actually departs this life in "original sin alone." For you, Pope Eugene may actually be making a definition regarding souls that do not exist.

My only "embellishment" is to take Pope Eugene at his word.
No, we do not “stick” to the same definition, for the definition I hold is based on his actual words and not on the embellishment thereof.

I’m not the one who changed the words of the definition to make them conform to what I think they “must” say. You take him not at his actual word, but the word you read into his words which are understood by some "factual predicate" (bias/logical fallacy) that is NOT actually a part of the definition. In other words, your “factual predicate” is an “inference” that you believe gives you the right to change the actual words of the definition and to tell us what they "actually” mean.

This is no different from Columba arguing that it is “defined” that no one who sheds his blood for Christ who has not been previously joined the Church through water Baptism is lost. Yours is just another manifestation of that same Feeneyite and Protestant malady – private interpretation. The only difference is that you attempt to recruit a consensus of theologians and tradition that you say agrees with you on the reformable aspect of the doctrine you say is not reformable; well, sort of, as we shall see.

In fact, let’s follow your “proof” from Trent to its logical conclusion and confront "reality".

“If anyone … says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema”
IF the Church does NOT understand this solemn infallible declaration to mean that the Church does not know of another means that can be brought to these infants other than Baptism (but that does not mean there is not another means), which is why she has always taught that infants must receive the laver of regeneration; and the Church does NOT leave any door open to the mercy of God by another means the Church is not aware (even by her own desire), then the implications are very clear – the Catholic Church as it exists today is a heretical whore spreading the abominable heresy that says we may have hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

In fact, any “speculation” about the possible application of baptism of blood to aborted infants must be sheer heresy, and we must hold that the Holy Innocents MUST have received water baptism since “original sin from Adam … must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life”.

See, we don’t need any “interpretation” or “qualification” by the Church, there it is in black and white, isn’t that right?

And did you not say that tradition supports such a rigid interpretation that would positively exclude any and all exceptions or qualifications, so that any attempt by the Church to develop what she obviously believes is the reformable aspect of the doctrine “in the present economy” is not only “absurd”, but outright heresy? Isn't that precisely what she did in her institution of the Feast of the Holy Innocents, by declaring them to be true martyrs?

So stop with the pussyfooting around and just say it. If what you say is true, then the Church teaches outright public heresy, and has allowed this heresy to be propagated by her theologians for quite some time. And the “heretical” pope even commissioned a theological commission to “justify” this heresy which goes even further by giving the hope of salvation to all unbaptized infants, a “heresy” which is clearly spelled out in the CCC and in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

So the Church can make an "exception" for baptism of blood when it comes to the Holy Innocents and possibly even for aborted infants, but no such exceptional remedy can be "developed" in the present economy that would allow for hope in the mercy of God and in the efficacious desire of the Church. The former exception (a true development) is an allowable exception, with the latter being heresy - because the same dogma that makes an exception for baptism of blood formally rejects any exception for a vicarious baptism of desire, and "tradition" confirms this formal rejection - got it.

However, we are not speaking about a current magisterial teaching having, allegedly, no magisterial “weight” whatsoever, we are speaking about outright objective heresy that is a blatant denial to what you say is a “defined” dogma of the Church.

As you said, it was “innovators” such as Pope Pius XII who understood “must be expiated in the laver of regeneration," in the context of ‘in the present economy,’ etc.” And we know such “language is an evasion of the truth, just like the gutting of a dogmatic definition to make it a definition.”

There you have it, Pope Pius XII was a sentimental modernist “innovator” who concealed his treachery in the language of the modernists; language that evaded the truth, paving the way for his heretical successors to gut a dogmatic definition by teaching outright heresy to the universal faithful.

So yes, as you say, if “it goes all the other way . . . my way”; then let’s take it all the way and stop with the pretense of the pope making some “innocent” mistake when he publicly denies, through his ordinary magisterium, a dogma of the faith.

tornpage wrote:
How is this different from the Feeneyite position on baptism of desire? Easy. You have an infallible statement of the solemn magisterium regarding baptism of desire in Trent's "or desire" for baptism regarding justification. You have an abundance of testimony in the fathers, in the Church's teaching office, in the teachings of its doctors such as St. Alphonsus, etc. supporting baptism of desire.
No one but people like columba deny the infallible statement of the magisterium regarding Trent's "or desire" for baptism regarding justification. But, your analogy is flawed.

Trent’s “or desire” for baptism is not a dogmatic definition that formally declared that no one can be saved without baptism or its desire, it is an infallible declaration that says, as you say, no one can be justified without Baptism, or its desire.

Now, can it be argued fact that we have a “factual predicate” in the form of seven or eight theologians who say that Trent’s Session 6, Ch. 4 a “de fide”, and the rest who say it is at least “proximate to the faith” or the common or certain opinion, confirmation that proves “de fide” that baptism of desire can save without actual ablution, and serves as justification for changing the word “justification” to “salvation” in the dogmatic prescription?

Furthermore, you analogy would compare the present magisterium to the St. Benedict Center NH which denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire (an infallible but non-defined and non-definitive [debatable] teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium), just as the magisterium allegedly “denies” the alleged dogma of the faith that formally “defined” there can be no hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

You are also off the mark when you suggest that tradition supports your position.

Your position assumes that tradition supports your contention that the Church has formally defined that there can be no hope for the salvation for unbaptized infants without actual sacramental ablution, and which rejects any theological development that says that this is true in the context of the present economy where the Church does not know of any way other than Baptism that can assure their salvation, but that there are reasons for hope that God may effect the same end apart from any know remedy available to the Church.

What this “proves” is that no matter that a majority of saints and theologians believed (correctly) that there is no other way open to the Church; that it does not necessarily and infallibly follow that there is no other way open to God, for the question has NEVER been formally settled. It is also true that theologians have been asking this question and exploring theological possibilities (both with respect to baptism of blood and baptism of desire) for quite some time and that the Church, the sole arbiter of truth and tradition, has every right to develop this aspect of the doctrine, notwithstanding your flawed objections.

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:57 am

Mike,

We can reconcile #1261 with Tradition by saying that #1261, while offering "hope," is not offering a "good hope." For instance, consider

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Given the fact that #1261 is not even listed under the section "Heaven," is not the "hope" that it is offering us similar to the "hope" that I would have in playing the Lottery? After all, people play the Lottery with the "hope" of winning (after all, what would be the point of playing in the first place?), but is such a "hope" a "good hope"? If #1261 were offering "good hope" for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, why wasn't it listed in the "Heaven" section of the CCC Index?
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:31 pm

Mike,

I'm not going to count the paragraphs this time, but not a single citation to tradition supplying a view contrary to mine, and supporting your "null set" contention.

Instead of "good luck with that," I should have said you need a miracle.

I’m not the one who changed the words of the definition to make them conform to what I think they “must” say. You take him not at his actual word, but the word you read into his words which are understood by some "factual predicate" (bias/logical fallacy) that is NOT actually a part of the definition. In other words, your “factual predicate” is an “inference” that you believe gives you the right to change the actual words of the definition and to tell us what they "actually” mean.

I changed nothing, and believing an assertion has a "factual predicate" is not making a "logical fallacy." It is simply believing that the words describe a real, factual situation that exits, that they have a "factual predicate" behind them. Such that an assertion that souls that die with original sin alone depart immediately to hell to suffer punishment means, well, that there are souls that die with original sin alone that depart immediately to hell to suffer punishment.

Imagine that.

Logical fallacy my fanny.

the Holy Innocents MUST have received water baptism since “original sin from Adam

The example of the Holy Innocents no more proves that other infants are saved without baptism than the example of the Holy Mother means other women have virgin births. Like Our Lady's virgin birth was prophesied by Scripture, so was the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents:

Matthew 2:18

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

But hey, any foothold you and the innovators can grab. I understand.

Frankly, I find the rest of your post a desperate screed unworthy of comment.


tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:42 pm

MRyan wrote:
I’m not the one who changed the words of the definition to make them conform to what I think they “must” say. You take him not at his actual word, but the word you read into his words which are understood by some "factual predicate" (bias/logical fallacy) that is NOT actually a part of the definition. In other words, your “factual predicate” is an “inference” that you believe gives you the right to change the actual words of the definition and to tell us what they "actually” mean.

It's good to see Mike that in at least one case you read only what's written.
When I refused to read more than was written in the alicution of Pius XII concerning an act of love sufficing for Baptism, you accuse me of misrepresenting its true meaning by not going along with your interpretation which was derived from your own additions to the text. It's strange too how your interpretation on the dogmas of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus are also derived from reading into the texts things which are not specifically stated there.
columba
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:28 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
I’m not the one who changed the words of the definition to make them conform to what I think they “must” say. You take him not at his actual word, but the word you read into his words which are understood by some "factual predicate" (bias/logical fallacy) that is NOT actually a part of the definition. In other words, your “factual predicate” is an “inference” that you believe gives you the right to change the actual words of the definition and to tell us what they "actually” mean.

It's good to see Mike that in at least one case you read only what's written.
When I refused to read more than was written in the alicution of Pius XII concerning an act of love sufficing for Baptism, you accuse me of misrepresenting its true meaning by not going along with your interpretation which was derived from your own additions to the text. It's strange too how your interpretation on the dogmas of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus are also derived from reading into the texts things which are not specifically stated there.
No, columba, it won't work; and nothing could be further from the truth.

It wasn't that you refused to read "more" into the words of the Allocution of Pope Pius XII, you refused to take his words precisely as they are written ... and precisely as they are understood by the Church without a single voice of dissent from a single theologian - not ever.

Pope Pius XII declared quite clearly and unambiguously that "Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism".

So stop pretending that he said "IF an act of love were possible, which it is not ... so never mind what I just said" when he said no such silly thing.

So where is the "addition to the text" from whence I derived my "interpretation" when I added or changed not a single word?

Seriously, where is it? You made the accusation, now back it up.

You are incredible, and I have to ask you once again if you just enjoy being obtuse, or do you really believe that Pope Pius XII did not actually mean to say what he actually said, that "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism "?

And it is not my "interpretation on the dogmas of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which "are also derived from reading into the texts things which are not specifically stated there", it is your private interpretations, change of words (or their meaning), and the "inferences" you take liberty with which lead you take your own private interpretations over that of the Church and tradition, and you do not care how many popes, saints, Doctors and theologians (as in all of them) reject your Pharisaical private interpretations, for you absolutely refuse to be moderated by the Church.

In fact, as I have demonstrated on more than one occasion, your private interpretations even apply to the definition of dogmatic definitions, which you extend (in your capacity as the arbiter of truth and tradition) even to non-defined passages of dogmatic texts.










MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:00 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

I'm not going to count the paragraphs this time, but not a single citation to tradition supplying a view contrary to mine, and supporting your "null set" contention.

Instead of "good luck with that," I should have said you need a miracle.
Spoken like a man with his head in the sand and with "null sets" on the brain who refuses to confront my actual arguments or the change in meaning he brings to a dogmatic definition by some logical deduction he says is based on "factual predicate".

And this issue is not over whether theologians in ages past took the more pessimistic view of no possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants because the Church does not know of any other possibility except Baptism, the question is whether these same theologians said the door was definitively closed, and whether the Church followed suit. The answer is NO, and plenty of theological precedence was brought forth to make that case, even if St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, believed that such precedence does not appear to extend to unbaptized infants.

But that's why its called theological development. If the precedent wasn't valid, there would be no development.

It was St. Ambrose who stated that he did not know if unbaptized infants can have the honor of the kingdom, while also saying that there is no other remedy besides Baptism. And here you are telling me that no such testimony from tradition exists. And I doubt if he laid awake at nights thinking about stupid "null sets".

You simply cannot respond to my factual arguments. Let’s try just one. Why can’t you respond to my question that asks: How can Pope Eugene IV possibility know with infallible certitude (revealed truth) that God refuses to save non-baptized infants apart from actual sacramental ablution, and, therefore, the pope can “define” that there “really” are non-baptized souls in hell who are there as a punishment for original sin alone?

Of course, he "defined" no such thing, and can't possibly "know" any such thing as a matter of revealed truth or infallible certitude; but he did in fact define that souls who die in original alone depart immediately for punishment in hell.

Neither can you respond to the fact that the Magisterium has never definitively settled this question; and if she really had, as you like to pretend, then how can she make an exception for the Holy Innocents, while at the same time dogmatically shutting the door on any possibility of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants through the mercy of God and by a means unknown to the Church in the present economy?

Fr. Harrison called the official recognition by the Church of the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents through Baptism of Blood a true development in doctrine, just like the true development taking place as the Church considers placing aborted infants in the same category; while you would have us believe that the Church has dogmatically ruled out any possibility of a development in doctrine that allows for the hope of salvation for other unbaptized infants (through our Lord and His Church) by way of a vicarious baptism of desire by the Church and the Communion of Saints (for example).

Is the Church guilty of heresy for giving unbaptized infants the hope of salvation, or not?

If you want you be consistent, you can have only one answer. I already know what Fr. Harrison would say, and he would reject your absurd dogmatic embellishment outright. He has never said that his arguments positively rule out the doctrine of hope - he simply gives the Church's teaching on this matter no magisterial "weight" whatsoever.

Tornpage wrote
the Holy Innocents MUST have received water baptism since “original sin from Adam
The example of the Holy Innocents no more proves that other infants are saved without baptism than the example of the Holy Mother means other women have virgin births. Like Our Lady's virgin birth was prophesied by Scripture, so was the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents:

Matthew 2:18

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Incredible! Where does this prophesy say anything about the Holy Innocents being martyred and saved through a baptism of blood? As Haydock says:

Rachel, who was buried at Bethlehem, is represented weeping (as it were in the person of those desolate mothers) the murder, and loss of so many children: and Rama being a city not far from Bethlehem, in the tribe of Benjamin, built on a high place, it is said that the cries and lamentations of these children, and their mothers, reached even to Rama. Cornel. a Lapide on Jerem. xxxi. thinks that these words were not only applied by the evangelist in a figurative sense, but that the prophet in the literal sense foretold these lamentations. Wi.
Just more “embellishment” on your part. But, while we're on the subject, her's what else Haydock has to say:

By this example, we learn how great credit we owe to the Church in canonizing saints, and celebrating their holydays: by whose only warrant, without any word of Scripture, these holy Innocents have been honoured as martyrs, and their holyday kept ever since the apostles' time, although they died not voluntarily, nor all, perhaps, circumcised, and some even children of pagans. Aug. ep. 28. Orig. hom. iii. in diversos. B.
You had to dig deep for that one, and you can't even get it right.

And imagine, baptism of blood can apply even to the unbaptized children of pagans, but baptism of desire cannot apply to the children of Catholics who desperately desire, as does the Church, the baptism of their children who die before baptism can be conferred.

And isn’t it strange that when the Church cites Scripture, and even the direct words of our Lord, in support of her teaching that says she has reasons to hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, all you can do is mock the Church, an Encyclical of Pope JPII, the CCC, and the ITC for being “absurd”.

Tornpage wrote:
Frankly, I find the rest of your post a desperate screed unworthy of comment.

And I find your entire line of reasoning appalling, and your mockery of the Church insulting.

I’m not the one running from the truth and this “debate”.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:22 pm

Well, Tornpage,

I think we've arrived at the point where any productive engagement is probably over.

The mutual insults serve no purpose, so let's end it here, unless you think the substance of the debate is worth pursuing.

I'll leave it to you, but I hope we can at least put an end to the insulting jabs - though I have no problem with the sarcasm.

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:24 pm

MRyan wrote:
It wasn't that you refused to read "more" into the words of the Allocution of Pope Pius XII, you refused to take his words precisely as they are written ... and precisely as they are understood by the Church without a single voice of dissent from a single theologian - not ever.

Without going over old ground, the theologians are not the teaching authority of the Church. If you wish to find dissenting voices to your interpretation of those words of Pope Pius XII just read Trent regarding the necessity of Baptism. You will find there 3 words that dubiously support your interpretation; "..or its desire," which if read in context with the rest of its teaching on Baptism the meaning of those words becomes clear.
Theologians would have no need to dissent by reading Pius XII's words as a null set. And before you protest the null set theory may I remind you that the "null set" is your own defense against Tornpage. I would think that if a null set were being considered it would most likely be so in the context of an alocution than in that of an ex cathedre teaching.

So where is the "addition to the text" from whence I derived my "interpretation" when I added or changed not a single word?

Seriously, where is it? You made the accusation, now back it up.


Your addition to the text in this case is almost identical to the addition you accuse Tornpage of making when you say that he infers something that isn't actually there.
Can you show me then where pope Pius XII states specifically that this act of love apart from Baptism actually occurs. He doesn't say it. He says it would suffice for Baptism if it were present.

You are incredible, and I have to ask you once again if you just enjoy being obtuse, or do you really believe that Pope Pius XII did not actually mean to say what he actually said

Nice one Mike.
When the Holy Office says that your "nul set" theory is devoid of any foundation regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism, are you saying that they didn't actually mean what they said? From where does this new hope emerge?
If your null set can exist, so can mine. What's obtuse about that?


Quoted by Tornpage:

Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

A warning (Monitum) of the Holy Office:

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfilment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.

columba
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  tornpage Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:55 pm

Let me borrow your crayons.

this issue is not over whether theologians in ages past took the more pessimistic view of no possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants because the Church does not know of any other possibility except Baptism

The theologians were brought up because you put me in the category of a Feeneyite who opposes baptism of desire by my rejection of this latest development regarding infants who die without baptism. The theologians and the tradition supporting my position shows dramatically how that is not the case. My position is the one supported by tradition, meaning the doctors, the theologians, the catechisms, the past infallible utterances, etc. This is not baptism of desire we are talking about, and I am not ignoring past magisterial statements or the common consensus of the theologians.

How can Pope Eugene IV possibility know with infallible certitude (revealed truth) that God refuses to save non-baptized infants apart from actual sacramental ablution, and, therefore, the pope can “define” that there “really” are non-baptized souls in hell who are there as a punishment for original sin alone?

He said what he said, and that was that those who die with mortal sin or original sin alone go to hell to suffer punishments. Too bad you can't ask him your question. You could also ask him how he knows that God refuses to save those who die in mortal sin by some extraordinary means beyond baptism, baptism of desire or baptism of blood, because he said they are in hell too. Well, at least as far as we know in "the present economy." Hey, maybe hell is devoid of any souls . . . maybe the whole group is a "null set."

You could gut almost any infallible definition or statement of substance or correspondence with factual reality by qualifying it, "in the present economy," or, "as far as we know," or, "God could do otherwise." I could see why your buddies in the conciliar church would find that valuable.

I'll color this one in bright orange: the death of the Holy Innocents was prophesied in Scripture. They are a case sui generis, a case apart. You can no more extrapolate from their example to other infants than you can from Our Lady's example to other women.

You're always making distinctions that miss the point. I know, I know, you have to, but still.

you would have us believe that the Church has dogmatically ruled out any possibility of a development in doctrine that allows for the hope of salvation for other unbaptized infants (through our Lord and His Church) by way of a vicarious baptism of desire by the Church and the Communion of Saints (for example).


I didn't say that. That's an inconvenient consequence of Pope Eugene's definition that you can't face - unless he's describing a "null set." Which I don't have on the brain, btw; I don't say the set of those who depart in mortal sin or with original sin alone are "null sets," you do.

Wait, I guess the "mortal sin" group you don't hold to be a "null set." At least until the conciliar church tells you that you should have hope for them too.

And I find your entire line of reasoning appalling, and your mockery of the Church insulting.

I find your evasion and fall into "null set" theory - especially in light of your mocking of Jehanne with his "null sets" - quite astounding, and your desperate attempts to justify this nonsense extremely disappointing.

MRyan arguing that a pope may have very well "defin[ed]" something that doesn't exist in reality, a "null set."

Go figure.




tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism. - Page 6 Empty Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum