Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

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

The Church is the only arbiter of tradition that we can rely on to tell us that #1261 is not opposed to tradition; and what I mean by that, is that it is not opposed to traditional theological precedence that allows for “hope”, and it is not opposed to the faith.

In other words, a true development in doctrine cannot be opposed to immutable or irreformable tradition (even it the common reformable opinion militates against it); meaning, tradition NEVER ruled out the possibility of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

For 800 years, as you know, the Church’s “tradition” included the assumption of eternal torments for unbaptized infants, and despite your objections, Limbo (that place in hell where unbaptized infants reside in a state of natural happiness removed from any sense suffering and sorrow) is a medieval development that provides a logical alternative solution to the Church’s growing realization that unbaptized infants, so long as they die in original sin, are “deserving” of neither heaven nor hell, even if prior tradition said they did in fact "deserve" the punishment of torments (however "mild") in the fires of hell, in addition to the pain of loss.

So there is no continuous tradition for Limbo, and there is no dogma or unanimous tradition that says unbaptized infants cannot have the hope of salvation; but there is a unanimous tradition that says the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that can assure them of salvation – and she still proclaims this truth, as well as the truth which says those who depart in original sin alone are lost.

But really, Jehanne, think about what you are saying. Again, what good is having reasons for hope if those reasons are bogus, meaning there are no “good” reasons for hope?

The idea is absurd. The Church would not tell us that she has reasons for hope if they were not good reasons, which is why Pope JPII said in Evangelium Vitae “To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your [aborted] child.”

And, if “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 [but not with a “good” or “sure” hope] that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”, then what is the point?

Tell me again that “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,’" are not "good" reasons for hope (in addition to the theological, Scriptural and Liturgical reasons for hope outlined elsewhere), as the Church tells us.

Mike,

You refuse to answer this, even though it has been posted to you now several times:

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.

No, Limbo was not just a "medieval development":

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.”

Limbo is part of the One and Triune God's "merciful plan."

Tornpage wrote:
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.

Mike's illogical adherence to this "new development in doctrine" is the only logical position he has left when an "either or" is the only option permitted, meaning; if one accepts that your either in or out concerning the legitimacy of Vat II, no middle ground remains. I'm beginning to think he's right on this. One will ultimately end up accepting everything the council proposes, where the logical and illogical clash and cancel each other out leaving only blind obedience absent of reason or, reject the whole thing as a farce. The problem is not knowing what you'll be left with once the rejection option is taken and this fear can taint ones judgment on the matter. I'm beginning however to realize that the full embracing of the new Church could be a fate worse than its rejection. It's like having a choice between becoming a robot or remaining sentient and it's only to the latter that salvation is possible.

Mike,

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.

I missed that prior to my last post. I had the reply open awhile and you probably posted it while I was working on it; Columba also posted while I was working on it, and I missed the post.

The sarcasm and jabs are just part of the game . . . as you know. This has an aspect of recreational sport for you and I, even though the issues (ultimately) are very important (understatement).

Seriously, I think we've both made our points, and as friends we should drop the exchange.

Unless comes to one or the other a point not made.

Columba,

if one accepts that your either in or out concerning the legitimacy of Vat II, no middle ground remains. I'm beginning to think he's right on this.

You know, with so much of it there's gray areas. If it's a gray area, you have to go with the magisterium - it's their call, not ours, and we have biases, leanings . . . we have to be wary of gut reactions.

Which is why I tend to try to look at some of these issues to see if there is any inconsistency, any contradiction. If there is, then you have a basis separate and apart from bias or emotion, but you still have to be careful.

These exchanges can be invaluable. And frankly I think we're lucky to have Mike to bounce our concerns and criticisms off of. If there's a flaw, he'll find it, and expose it. And if he can't, that's a good indication that we may be right.

The NO, explicit faith, ecumenism, on all of these issues I bent but didn't break. It's gray enough for the Church to prevail over my biases. There was no clear and airtight contradiction that showed "Newchurch" to be false.

This issue regarding "hope" for unbaptized infants, however . . . right now, I think it blows the lid off the kettle. There is a contradiction here that settles it, I'm afraid.

I can't believe Pope Eugene was not "defin[ing]" regarding actual souls and a real situation that prevails. Which means there's at least some unbaptized infants in hell, whether you call it a Limbo of natural happiness with the punishment of denial of the indescribable bliss of the presence of God, or agree with St. Augustine's understanding.

The Vatican's doctrine of hope is inconsistent with Pope Eugene's infallible definition, because if it is right, then there are not souls in hell with "original sin alone." Either Pope Eugene, speaking infallibly, is wrong, or the current magisterium. It certainly can't be Pope Eugene.

Mike has not convinced me that my analysis is off here.

From Douay-Rheims: Matthew 19: 25-26

In regards to the rich man entering Heaven. But could not the same answer have been given on the possibility of aborted babies entering Heaven?

" 25 And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved? [Matthew 19:25] [Latin]
26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God ALL things are possible. "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And who would dare pit one Pope against another Pope as if our puny intelligence was up to the depth of understanding?

And who would dare reduce the word "Hope" as used by Our Holy Father as it it applies to the possibility of the aborted being saved as determined by God alone, to a meaningless word such as in little hope, not good hope, unrealistic hope or mock the word hope itself?

And who would need an answer on questions that perhaps the only accurate answer might be that we do not know as in are there souls in hell with original sin only? What we do know is what happened in the time of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah and the countless visions of hell and the fewness of those saved as taught by many Saints.

On this Sunday, a special thank you to MRyan and Simple Faith, for your posts comfort my soul and my prayers go out to you and all on this forum who are seeking truth.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You refuse to answer this, even though it has been posted to you now several times:

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.

Jehanne,

I have never failed to answer this, even if you refuse to recognize the truth of my reply.

Regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism, never has the Church used the reasons for hope as a reason to delay an infant’s baptism or to marginalize its necessity -– and she even spells this out in the same section of the CCC where she gives hope. The ITC spelled this out as well.

The Church does not play Russian Roulette with the doctrine of hope which cannot give the assurance of salvation, which is precisely the difference between the danger associated with the delay of an infant's baptism and that of an adult’s, the latter of which the Church tells us does not come with the same danger since an adult’s desire and proper dispositions will assure him of the grace he desires should an unforeseen accident make it impossible for him to receive the sacrament. Yes, there is always the danger that the desire is not sincere, but that is between God and the penitent – the Church simply tells us the conditions necessary for justification and why the dangers are not the same.

Furthermore, for all the false accusations of "illogical” arguments and the mocking of our popes that we see on this thread, it is a fact that Pope Pius XII placed “the Church does not know of another means other than baptism that can assure an infant’s salvation” into proper context when he added “in the present economy”, meaning another means may in fact exist which the Church simply does not yet recognize as a "'solid foundation" for giving the assurance of salvation; but as only a solid foundation for hope.

In other words, this aspect of the doctrine is and always has been reformable; and that being so, it is still open to legitimate organic development.

Limbo is not and cannot be opposed to the faith, but, contrary to your rash statement, it is NOT de fide. Never has the Church formally “defined” Limbo as a revealed truth, and never has the Church definitively declared it as being an infallible non-revealed doctrine. It is “infallible” only in the sense that it cannot be opposed to the faith, but this does not mean that it is “de fide” that it actually exists, and this does not mean that Catholics are obliged under the pain of sin to believe that it exists.

You are in error, and it is about time that you correct your error.

I will address your citation from St. Alphonsus in a separate post; but I thank you for the citation since it is rich with many of the points I’ve been making and only supports the fact that Limbo is a reformable doctrine; as well as a medieval development.

Note well that this does not mean that Limbo was not “implicit” in the teaching of the Fathers (that’s what “development” means), or that it is not a legitimate solution to the more rigorous doctrine of Augustine, but only that Limbo as a place set aside from the fires of hell and the dominion of the devil, and apart from any sense suffering and sorrow, did not come to take concrete form until the middle ages.

Mike,

I no longer believe in the possibility that the Church would teach the existence of a "null set," and I will be modifying my blog accordingly (and, in fact, already have, but I have some more to do.) The fact that Pope Eugene IV defined that, "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" means, in fact, that there are such souls who go to Hell with only original sin. You've convinced me of this -- the Church does not teach things which have no basis in reality and which never occur.

The monitum says:

Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

The action at issue is the deferring of baptism. The action "draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation." The opinions involve "the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism."

What do you think those opinions are? That the infants are in hell with original sin? Obviously not. The opinions obviously go to the possibility or hope of salvation for unbaptized infants. They are opinions that there may be some "hope" or possibility of salvation for infants beyond baptism, therefore a delay does or may not have deadly consequences if an infant were to die before baptism.

What other possible type of opinions (other than those of hope or optimism regarding the fate of unbaptized infants) would be brought forth to "support" a delay?

The opinions are "DEVOID OF ANY SOLID FOUNDATION."

Not any more apparently:

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.

I guess the Holy Office in 1958 didn't understand 1 Timothy 2:4.

Again:

Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

The censured opinions do not draw support from themselves, or from opinions about the timing of baptism for infants. They draw support from opinions "regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism."

Opinions which, contra what is now being said and peddled, are "devoid however of any solid foundation."

But you can spin anything in the Church's new-fangled laundromat where original sin is washed away even without washing machines.

That's sarcasm, not insult to anyone here.

tornpage wrote:Columba,

if one accepts that your either in or out concerning the legitimacy of Vat II, no middle ground remains. I'm beginning to think he's right on this.

You know, with so much of it there's gray areas. If it's a gray area, you have to go with the magisterium - it's their call, not ours, and we have biases, leanings . . . we have to be wary of gut reactions.

Which is why I tend to try to look at some of these issues to see if there is any inconsistency, any contradiction. If there is, then you have a basis separate and apart from bias or emotion, but you still have to be careful.

These exchanges can be invaluable. And frankly I think we're lucky to have Mike to bounce our concerns and criticisms off of. If there's a flaw, he'll find it, and expose it. And if he can't, that's a good indication that we may be right.

The NO, explicit faith, ecumenism, on all of these issues I bent but didn't break. It's gray enough for the Church to prevail over my biases. There was no clear and airtight contradiction that showed "Newchurch" to be false.

This issue regarding "hope" for unbaptized infants, however . . . right now, I think it blows the lid off the kettle. There is a contradiction here that settles it, I'm afraid.

I can't believe Pope Eugene was not "defin[ing]" regarding actual souls and a real situation that prevails. Which means there's at least some unbaptized infants in hell, whether you call it a Limbo of natural happiness with the punishment of denial of the indescribable bliss of the presence of God, or agree with St. Augustine's understanding.

The Vatican's doctrine of hope is inconsistent with Pope Eugene's infallible definition, because if it is right, then there are not souls in hell with "original sin alone." Either Pope Eugene, speaking infallibly, is wrong, or the current magisterium. It certainly can't be Pope Eugene.

Mike has not convinced me that my analysis is off here.

tornpage.

I agree concerning the existence of many gray areas that can be legitimate objects for further investigation and clarity and I agree also that Mike is probably the best person to debate with on such areas as those that allow room for maneuver. I can't however say the same concerning matters that have already been established as constant and non-negotiable. . Being that he is immoveable in his belief that the post conciliar Church has never authoritatively (or even non-authoritatively) taught any error, can only mean that if in fact error has been taught he will always defend that error as being orthodox and will have to do so with the use of specious arguments.

These arguments of his seem on the surface to work quite well while they are contained within a kind of mathematical framework where no constant values are attributable to anything and all can be considered as variables (even though posing as constants). However, while the variable takes on the appearance of a constant within any particular sum when viewed in isolation from all other sums, when one is compared with another, this seemingly constant value is exposed for what it is; a variable, and vice versa.

IMO the only defense against this type of presentation is to acknowledge the existence of constants and insist that they be recognized as such. The indisputable constants of our faith are the dogmatic definitions and all teachings that follow organically from them. These I would consider as being the white areas. The gray areas are those which cannot be proven (as yet) to be consistent with those already established truths, and the black areas are those which are presented in such a way that (the ill-informed) will accept them as true teachings while they remain obviously inconsistent with revealed truth.

Columba,

The indisputable constants of our faith are the dogmatic definitions and all teachings that follow organically from them.

Agreed.

Feeneyites are honest thinkers, and one of the reasons why I was one was because of their honest methodology. If A is infallibly true, and B contradicts A, B not only can, but must be rejected, as B cannot be true.

However, I ultimately rejected the Feeneyite conclusion on baptism because it just doesn't square up with Trent's "or desire" and the way the Church and its doctors, theologians, catechisms etc. interpreted it. If you accept the Church and its authority, you accept the interpretation. Obviously, we are talking about an interpretation of the dogma by the pre-Vatian II Church.

For all of us here, the post-Vatican II Church is, or has been, the issue, at some point - even for Mike. That is why we are here and not at catholicanswers.

Anyway, the issue here is different from baptism of desire. We have an infallible definition which, when looked at in the context of what the Church's doctors, theologians, catechisms, other relevant infallible pronouncements say, goes the other way. It is against the interpretation of "hope" for the infants; whereas with baptism of desire, the same context or interpretative matrix went for baptism of desire. This is a critical distinction.

This is where the issue is different with Pope Eugene and the infallible definition at issue.

If I am wrong regarding this definition, you have to say that it describes a "null set." I say that the Church doesn't teach "null sets," or engage in speculation about
"null sets." The definition therefore refers to actual souls, which means there are souls in hell with original sin alone. Those souls cannot be adults capable of choice who receive actual graces calling for a response.

They are infants or mentally deficient adults.

Of course, we would not have a "null set" if the set were mentally deficient adults alone. But I see no basis for making a distinction for hope for infants and not mentally deficient adults on the asserted ground of a universal salvific will.

So there we are.

columba wrote:
I can't however say the same concerning matters that have already been established as constant and non-negotiable. Being that he [MRyan] is immoveable in his belief that the post conciliar Church has never authoritatively (or even non-authoritatively) taught any error, can only mean that if in fact error has been taught he will always defend that error as being orthodox and will have to do so with the use of specious arguments.

Columba, for all your bluff and bluster, you can’t produce a single teaching presented by the magisterium to the universal Church (through the CCC, VCII, Encyclicals, the Holy Office, etc.) which contain an error on a matter of faith or morals, let alone an error on a matter related directly to salvation.

For example, the fact that the alleged “error” of baptism of blood/baptism of desire predates the post conciliar Church by centuries refutes that bit of nonsense; so that leaves you with the challenge of identifying those alleged “errors” that are unique to the post conciliar era, which you have failed to do.

And please note that MRyan has never defended any such nonsense that says an “error” is actually “orthodox”; I have gone the extra mile by demonstrating that the alleged errors such as religious liberty, ecumenism (as it relates to matters of faith), Particular Churches, etc. are orthodox and entirely consistent with previous teachings.

I have also produced the documented evidence by respected theologians and Church officials (to include the pope and the Holy Office) to justify my position which only supports the teachings of the popes who tell us with magisterial certitude that apparent inconsistencies in official Church teachings and magisterial documents are just that, for they are only apparent to the person who obviously has not been able to reconcile the teaching with his own flawed understanding of the same doctrine, or he doesn’t realize that there are new aspects or emphasis given to an existing doctrine which heretofore have been given little attention.

Once again:

Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1983: "In the third paragraph you speak of 'statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.' Then you list three texts of the Council 'incompatible', according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an 'etc.' …But you can not assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you ARE DEPARTING DEEPLY from the fundamental structure of the Catholic faith; the of faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City."

Pope Paul VI, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1976: “Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.”

Pope Benedict XVI (May 2009): "The Second Vatican Council, desiring to pass on, pure and integral, the doctrine on the Church that had developed in the course of 2,000 years, gave the Church a 'more deeply considered definition' …As I was able to explain in my Discourse to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005, an interpretative current, claiming to refer to a presumed 'spirit of the Council', sought to establish a 'discontinuity' and even to distinguish between the Church before and the Church after the Council…the word and spirit of the Council which did not desire a rupture, another Church, but rather a true and deep renewal in the continuity of the one subject Church which grows in time and develops but always remains identical.

Neither have I ever denied that unintentional error may in fact exist in a fallible magisterial explication, but I do in fact draw a line in the sand on matters of faith and salvation that are presented to the universal Church which are also taught and held by the universal consensus of Bishops (“The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this”). I have simply asked you to produce the evidence of error, and you can’t.

The allegation of error is not error, and your specious allegations are just that; and I'm sorry, but thus far you have not demonstrated that you have the theological or doctrinal wherewithal to back up your empty allegations.

So I do NOT simply accept that error is not error, I shake the alleged error upside down and inside out to see if there is any basis for the allegation, and also explore what the Church actually might be teaching on the matter (which involves becoming familiar with what the given expert theologians say on the matter, and reading divergent theological points of view), and then trusting what always (to date) turns out to be the case -- the Church actually knows what she is talking about and always stands vindicated -- and is smarter than the naysayers.

We do approach this with different mind-sets, and that I will grant you. For you approach an alleged error with the assumption that the error exists, and proceed to try and "prove" that the error exists; whereas I approach any given difficulty in understanding as a probable defect on my part, and begin with the presumption that the given doctrine can be reconciled with tradition.

Sometimes it takes me awhile (years) to figure out the wisdom of the Church, but eventually it sinks and the darkness is dispelled, if only because the Church, through her official explanations and that of her theologians, took her dear sweet time in clearing up a very difficult matter.

And I positively reject any accusation that says I am playing mind-games with myself - I am not; I'm just tenacious and won't rest until I find the truth - and I always find it in the strangest of all places, with the living, authentic and ordinary Magisterium of the One True Church of Christ.

Oh, and Tornpage is wrong; and simply put, he is not paying attention, as his avoidance of my actual arguments demonstrates. He'll get there eventually - just watch.

On a personal note, Tornpage is right when he says we are both reformed Feeneyites; and I was one of the more vocal (obnoxious) ones of the lot. When I could no longer support "Feeneyism", I lost a lot of friends, columba, but my true friends (the one or two that remain) understood why I had to go with the truth as I understand it, even if they do not agree. So don't ever confuse me with this character described by Fr. Harrison:

But (we may ask) what if it seems incompatible with the previous magisterium? “No problem!” – we will be assured. “Don’t you know that’s called ‘development of doctrine’? If there’s some real incompatibility, that just means the old pre-conciliar teaching is now superseded by the new one. We faithful Catholics must simply change step doctrinally when Holy Mother Church herself changes step!”

See, I respect Fr. Harrison but would not hesitate to tell him the same thing I am telling you and Tornpage: There is no "real incompatibility" with the doctrine of "hope", not because I made it magically disappear, but for the very solid reasons the Church tells us; and for the very reason that says the fate of unbaptized infants has always has been a reformable doctrine (within due limits) open to further development, just as the baptism of blood martyrdom of the Holy Innocents was, and the existence of Limbo is, open to further development.

That Fr. Harrison was for it ("theologically certain" -- with respect to aborted infants) as a true development (like the Holy Innocents) before he was against it only demonstrates his own inconsistency, IMHO. But that's for another time.

At the danger of sounding like a 'Mryanite' I must say that Mike has always been a straight conduit for sound teachings of the church and for that reason I feel I can trust his responses. Mike comes across as someone who has been around the block quite a few times and has arrived at his total trust in the faith of the Catholic Church, through the school of hard-knocks. How he manages to pull up centuries of documents to support or refute any opinion is beyond me (I can never remember where I read anything, never mind actually quote from it). In fact I don't know any members of clergy who could give such precise answers, backed up with solid evidence.
So, if Mrayn irritates anyone by his style, I would say, it is a small price to pay for free access to the vast amount of authentic knowledge he has acquired.
At a time when our Pope needs every little bit of support available, Mrayn has gone far beyond the call of duty in his defence.
Keep up the good work Mike.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I no longer believe in the possibility that the Church would teach the existence of a "null set," and I will be modifying my blog accordingly (and, in fact, already have, but I have some more to do.) The fact that Pope Eugene IV defined that, "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" means, in fact, that there are such souls who go to Hell with only original sin. You've convinced me of this -- the Church does not teach things which have no basis in reality and which never occur.

Jehanne,

The problem lies with your assumption that the Church “would teach the existence of a 'null set'"; which is simply putting the cart before the horse. For in truth, a “null set” may in fact exist in matters pertaining to non-revealed and non-definitive doctrines, precisely because they are reformable.

You appear to be suggesting with Tornpage that “original sin alone” means that there MUST exist (de fide definite) unbaptized infants and/or mentally handicapped souls who die in original sin alone, otherwise, the possibility of salvation for such souls would mean an empty “null set” of any such souls in hell who die in original sin alone – and hell would be filled only with, well, actual sinners.

The refutation of this argument is quite simple: Has it been defined, as Tornpage alleges, that “hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of 'original sin alone'"?

No, it has not, this is simply Tornpage’s flawed interpolation of the dogma which actually defined that “the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ..."

Are you going to take the position of Tornpage, or that of Fr. Harrison? Though I disagree with Fr. Harrison, he at least recognizes that the defined dogma as Tornpage writes it does not exist.

And, contrary to Tornpage’s rash allegation, never has my primary objection to your “null set” theory been based on the idea of null sets themselves. My primary objection has always been based on the doctrinal incompatibilities which seem always to emerge in opposition to the given doctrines, with the “null set” theory serving as cover for the true problem – which is always doctrinal.

That was my beef with Lionel, and that was my beef with you. In other words, as I have said on numerous occasions, I don’t care if someone believes there is no one in heaven who has not been baptized in water, so long as the doctrines of the Baptisms of blood and desire are not rejected as falsehoods; what matters is that the Church teaches that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are truly efficacious; meaning such a possibility of salvation without water baptism exists, and her own Liturgy suggests that there are such souls who were martyred without water baptism; even if it is not “de fide” that there are such souls in heaven.

However, as I said, the St. Benedict Center position which denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire on doctrinal grounds always rears its ugly head in one form or another (e.g., justifying the null set theory by demonstrating the alleged incompatibility of defined dogma with the Baptisms of blood and desire), and the otherwise innocuous null set hypothesis turns out to be not so innocuous when placed under such a light.

So in theory, when it comes to reformable doctrines, null sets are a logical consequence of the doctrine being subject to development and change – which they must be if they are reformable (but never opposed to the core dogma or to truth).

Does Limbo exist, or is it a mere theory – meaning it may not actually exist (a null set)? We don’t know – and that’s a fact. However, we do not dismiss the authority of the Church when she suggests that by logical necessity it may not exist under the doctrine of hope if God chooses to salve all unbaptized infants.

In other words, if you are abandoning the possibility of null sets completely, then you are abandoning the truth that says there are at times reformable aspects to a given dogma that are open to reform, and thus, are open to the possibility of “null sets”.

Jehanne, has it been defined that there are baptized souls in heaven who were restored to sanctifying grace after having fallen -- without sacerdotal absolution?

Does it matter that we cannot “prove” that there are such souls in heaven when God may have ensured that all such souls received the benefit of sacerdotal absolution?

And yet, there is a foundational similarity between both doctrines (hope and perfect contrition after baptism) in that in neither case can anyone be saved without the grace of the respective Sacrament. Whereas in the latter case the means of attaining this grace in an extraordinary manner has been revealed; in the former case the Church can only offer hope for she does not know with certainty how the end can be accomplished without actual ablution – but she has “sure” reasons to hope that God may in fact provide the grace of Baptism in some or all such cases.

In other words, the Church does not care about potential “null sets” when she formulates her doctrines, she cares only about the truth without restricting the hand of God – even if the common but reformable opinion weighs in favor of such a restriction.

Mike,

Even the International Theological Commission stated,

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis...

Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture...

Okay, it hasn't been defined, but it needs to be. Traditional Catholics, such as myself, will continue to defend it, not as a theory, but as a fact and will press the Holy Father to make a de fide definita declaration. I could only assume that when the current Pope or his successor does, in fact, define Limbo as existing and being real and also that there are souls of individuals who are there, having died with original sin alone, that you will then accept it as being true.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
I can't however say the same concerning matters that have already been established as constant and non-negotiable. Being that he [MRyan] is immoveable in his belief that the post conciliar Church has never authoritatively (or even non-authoritatively) taught any error, can only mean that if in fact error has been taught he will always defend that error as being orthodox and will have to do so with the use of specious arguments.

Columba, for all your bluff and bluster, you can’t produce a single teaching presented by the magisterium to the universal Church (through the CCC, VCII, Encyclicals, the Holy Office, etc.) which contain an error on a matter of faith or morals, let alone an error on a matter related directly to salvation.

For example, the fact that the alleged “error” of baptism of blood/baptism of desire predates the post conciliar Church by centuries refutes that bit of nonsense; so that leaves you with the challenge of identifying those alleged “errors” that are unique to the post conciliar era, which you have failed to do.

And please note that MRyan has never defended any such nonsense that says an “error” is actually “orthodox”; I have gone the extra mile by demonstrating that the alleged errors such as religious liberty, ecumenism (as it relates to matters of faith), Particular Churches, etc. are orthodox and entirely consistent with previous teachings.

I have also produced the documented evidence by respected theologians and Church officials (to include the pope and the Holy Office) to justify my position which only supports the teachings of the popes who tell us with magisterial certitude that apparent inconsistencies in official Church teachings and magisterial documents are just that, for they are only apparent to the person who obviously has not been able to reconcile the teaching with his own flawed understanding of the same doctrine, or he doesn’t realize that there are new aspects or emphasis given to an existing doctrine which heretofore have been given little attention.

Once again:

Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1983: "In the third paragraph you speak of 'statements or expressions of the Council that are contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.' Then you list three texts of the Council 'incompatible', according to you, with the Magisterium, adding even an 'etc.' …But you can not assert the incompatibility of the conciliar texts - which are magisterial texts - with the Magisterium and Tradition. You can say that personally, you do not see this compatibility, and to ask explanations of the Apostolic See. But if, on the contrary, you assert the impossibility of such an explanation, you ARE DEPARTING DEEPLY from the fundamental structure of the Catholic faith; the of faith of the Church which you are claiming to defend at the end of your letter, the faith you were taught during your childhood and in the Eternal City."

Pope Paul VI, Letter to Ab Lefebvre, 1976: “Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.”

Pope Benedict XVI (May 2009): "The Second Vatican Council, desiring to pass on, pure and integral, the doctrine on the Church that had developed in the course of 2,000 years, gave the Church a 'more deeply considered definition' …As I was able to explain in my Discourse to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005, an interpretative current, claiming to refer to a presumed 'spirit of the Council', sought to establish a 'discontinuity' and even to distinguish between the Church before and the Church after the Council…the word and spirit of the Council which did not desire a rupture, another Church, but rather a true and deep renewal in the continuity of the one subject Church which grows in time and develops but always remains identical.

Neither have I ever denied that unintentional error may in fact exist in a fallible magisterial explication, but I do in fact draw a line in the sand on matters of faith and salvation that are presented to the universal Church which are also taught and held by the universal consensus of Bishops (“The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this”). I have simply asked you to produce the evidence of error, and you can’t.

The allegation of error is not error, and your specious allegations are just that; and I'm sorry, but thus far you have not demonstrated that you have the theological or doctrinal wherewithal to back up your empty allegations.

So I do NOT simply accept that error is not error, I shake the alleged error upside down and inside out to see if there is any basis for the allegation, and also explore what the Church actually might be teaching on the matter (which involves becoming familiar with what the given expert theologians say on the matter, and reading divergent theological points of view), and then trusting what always (to date) turns out to be the case -- the Church actually knows what she is talking about and always stands vindicated -- and is smarter than the naysayers.

We do approach this with different mind-sets, and that I will grant you. For you approach an alleged error with the assumption that the error exists, and proceed to try and "prove" that the error exists; whereas I approach any given difficulty in understanding as a probable defect on my part, and begin with the presumption that the given doctrine can be reconciled with tradition.

Sometimes it takes me awhile (years) to figure out the wisdom of the Church, but eventually it sinks and the darkness is dispelled, if only because the Church, through her official explanations and that of her theologians, took her dear sweet time in clearing up a very difficult matter.

And I positively reject any accusation that says I am playing mind-games with myself - I am not; I'm just tenacious and won't rest until I find the truth - and I always find it in the strangest of all places, with the living, authentic and ordinary Magisterium of the One True Church of Christ.

Oh, and Tornpage is wrong; and simply put, he is not paying attention, as his avoidance of my actual arguments demonstrates. He'll get there eventually - just watch.

On a personal note, Tornpage is right when he says we are both reformed Feeneyites; and I was one of the more vocal (obnoxious) ones of the lot. When I could no longer support "Feeneyism", I lost a lot of friends, columba, but my true friends (the one or two that remain) understood why I had to go with the truth as I understand it, even if they do not agree. So don't ever confuse me with this character described by Fr. Harrison:

But (we may ask) what if it seems incompatible with the previous magisterium? “No problem!” – we will be assured. “Don’t you know that’s called ‘development of doctrine’? If there’s some real incompatibility, that just means the old pre-conciliar teaching is now superseded by the new one. We faithful Catholics must simply change step doctrinally when Holy Mother Church herself changes step!”

See, I respect Fr. Harrison but would not hesitate to tell him the same thing I am telling you and Tornpage: There is no "real incompatibility" with the doctrine of "hope", not because I made it magically disappear, but for the very solid reasons the Church tells us; and for the very reason that says the fate of unbaptized infants has always has been a reformable doctrine (within due limits) open to further development, just as the baptism of blood martyrdom of the Holy Innocents was, and the existence of Limbo is, open to further development.

That Fr. Harrison was for it ("theologically certain" -- with respect to aborted infants) as a true development (like the Holy Innocents) before he was against it only demonstrates his own inconsistency, IMHO. But that's for another time.

Mike I do empathize with you and the lengths you go to along with the accompanying flack you take in order to uphold the integrity of the post vat II Church as I myself had done for approximately 22 years, from defending the pedophilia as a media perpetrated hatchet job on the Church (which is/was true to a large extent) to the defending of liturgical deviancies for the sake of attracting the youth; and having participated to the fullest measure in everything post conciliar in the most neo-con way possible for all those years, I ended up fleeing for my life with possibly the only thing of faith left intact being the indelible sacramental mark of Baptism I received as a 3 day old infant. All this without ever having read Pope St. Pius V Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius X Pascendi, or any other pre-conciliar Church document you might care to name. And all this only to discover that there's even worse flack to take in not defending post conciliarism.

You ask me to produce even one supposed error contained in any Vat II teaching document. I could oblige you on this but I could also do as you do and explain the supposed error away. What I can't do however is explain away the diabolical consequences of these teachings as a whole, and the rotten fruits that were -and still are- the product of these teachings.

Robert Sungenis done a pretty good job against the Dimond brothers in defending such supposed error contained in "Nostra Aetate" while at the same time acknowledging the ambiguous teaching for what it was.
My belief -and that of Pope Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei) - is that the ambiguity is itself the error and must be treated as such; he says, "In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged" And Pope Pius XII also affirms that "Catholic doctrine must be set forth and taught completely and entirely. One cannot allow that anything should be omitted or veiled in ambiguous terms." (Address to the Bishops of the Sacred Congregation, 1949).

Yes. The ambiguous and uncertain teaching is itself a greater error than any error it may or may not contain, as from it, anyone can hold to any error he wishes.

How true are the words of holy scripture, "the double tongue is accursed: for he hath troubled many that were at peace." Ecclesiasticus 28:15

"Morever, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. (Pope Pius VI Auctorem Fidei)

Sometimes one must view the forest instead of the trees.

Simple Faith wrote:
"..So, if Mrayn irritates anyone by his style..,"

I quite like his style but for purely selfish reasons.
When he irritates me (as he does) I don't feel guilty when responding in kind.
That's not to say that there's no room for improvement in his generally caustic style.

George Brenner wrote:
And who would dare pit one Pope against another Pope as if our puny intelligence was up to the depth of understanding?

The most recent example of one such daring person is Benedict XVI.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Even the International Theological Commission stated,

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis...

Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture...

Okay, it hasn't been defined, but it needs to be. Traditional Catholics, such as myself, will continue to defend it, not as a theory, but as a fact and will press the Holy Father to make a de fide definita declaration.

Very good, Jehanne, and it is certainly within your rights to defend Limbo and to hope/pray/campaign for a dogmatic definition.

My opinion, for what its worth, is that it'll never happen - the justification for a definition simply is not there - though I could be wrong. Besides, the Church's development in this area militates against any such definition.

I could only assume that when the current Pope or his successor does, in fact, define Limbo as existing and being real and also that there are souls of individuals who are there, having died with original sin alone, that you will then accept it as being true.

That was joke, right? Not only have I never denied the existence of Limbo, I've never denied that if Limbo exists, there are souls there; otherwise, there would be no reason for its existence. I have absolutely no problem with the existence of Limbo.

And you "assume" that I would accept a dogmatic definition by the Supreme Pontiff? Now why would you assume such a thing?

MRyan wrote:That was joke, right? Not only have I never denied the existence of Limbo, I've never denied that if Limbo exists, there are souls there; otherwise, there would be no reason for its existence. I have absolutely no problem with the existence of Limbo.

And you "assume" that I would accept a dogmatic definition by the Supreme Pontiff? Now why would you assume such a thing?

Great. It's good to see that your views are at least reformable. Even though my hypothetical letter to the Pope would likely fall on "deaf ears," (indeed, such a letter would never even reach his desk, which is why I am not going to bother even sending it) I am certainly going to send a letter/email to Bishop Fellay, and this is what I am going to say (not an exact dictation -- things will be a little more formal):

Your Excellency,

Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence stated this:

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.

He also stated this:

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.

And this:

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.

And, of course, Saint Thomas stated this:

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)

And, this:

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)

And, finally, this:

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)

I do not believe that the intent of the Council of Florence, Saint Thomas, the many other Fathers & Doctors of the Church, Popes & Councils, the Council of Trent (in particular), the Roman Catechism, the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XII was to teach the existence of "null sets."

I believe that the Holy Father should condemn the error which states that the Church, in teaching about the existence of hell, and the fate of at least some infants who end this life without Baptism, was teaching the existence of "null sets."

Mike there's a point contained in one of your responses to tornpage I've been meaning to get back to. You said;

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.

This is strange. How can you refer to baptism of desire and baptism of blood as a doctrine when the Church teaches 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. ???

The CCC is not merely making this statement in relation to the fate of non-baptized infants, she is saying that, no other means is known apart from Baptism wherby anyone at all can be saved. Therefore the Church cannot be sure that baptism of desire/Blood are salvific; therefore it has to be the case that when referring to baptism of blood/Blood she is speaking of the possibility of another way but not confirming that this other way actually exists.

I know you will answer that the grace of Baptism can be supplied by baptism of desire/blood without the actual reception of the sacrament itself. The problem with this is; if this is certain then another means apart from the sacrament is in fact known and this is contrary to what the Church has already affirmed as quoted above.

What say tornpage too?

Mike,

For in truth, a “null set” may in fact exist in matters pertaining to non-revealed and non-definitive doctrines, precisely because they are reformable.

But we are talking about a revealed doctrine, of which you say a "null set" may indeed be being taught. You are telling us that there may not be any souls who die with original sin alone, and that would mean the dogma embraces a "null set." While you argue with me as to whether there is any factual predicate of actual souls who die with original sin alone behind Pope Eugene's teaching, the fact is, even going with your sense of what is being defined - which may be empty breath, a totally superfluous teaching of the infallible magisterium, for it appears that no one may actually die with original sin alone - the set could be "null":

No, it has not, this is simply Tornpage’s flawed interpolation of the dogma which actually defined that “the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ..."

Even according to your understanding - not quite sure what that is, it seems to be an "if any soul were to depart in original sin alone they'd go to hell" - the revealed doctrine would be identifying a "null set" if no soul departed in original sin alone.

Your distinction still leaves us with the infallible magisterium revealing a "null set."

The debate, as in clear from the CE article on Limbo, is not if these infants were in Bliss, but where are they outside of Heaven, i.e. a Limbo of some sort of natural bliss or a hell of the mildest possible punishment with fire. All theologians assumed that there were actually and in fact souls that had died with original sin, i.e. that there was a factual predicate behind Pope Eugene's definition.

Show me one theologian, after Pope Eugene's definition and the other early statements of the magisterium about original sin and the fate of those dying with it, who maintained that these infants were saved. I have heard of Cardinal Cajetan's opinion as to babies of Catholic or Christian parents - a view I believe was similar to Calvin's - and Tyler Marshall, a member of the Called to Communion blog, had this to say about it:

Obviously, Catholic parents desire for their infant to be baptized. If the infant should die before baptism, one could perceive that the infant received "baptism by desire". In the case of infant baptism, the infant is baptized through profession of faith by the parents and godparents. Why wouldn't the child receive "baptism by desire" through the same intention of the parents? The position was once explored by Thomas Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534). However, Pope Saint Pius V condemned the position and had this passaged removed from Cajetan's works!

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/10/unbaptized-babies-that-die-five.html

The "consensus" of the theologians is virtually unanimous, just as with baptism of desire. The question was only, where are these unsaved infants with original sin alone, in Limbo or a hell of punishment?

Universalists use the same argument you use in claiming everyone is saved: the Church has not said that there is anyone actually in hell, but that if you died in mortal sin you'd go to hell. The Church doesn't know definitively that anyone actually died with mortal sin, etc.

So I guess not only the Church, but Christ himself in the Gospels, could reveal "null sets."

Even if one accepts your spin on what Pope Eugene taught, it still remains that he defined a "null set" if no one actually dies with original sin alone.

It's one thing for Catholic, such as Jehanne, to believe (if he still does) that the Church teaches "null sets" - he could and still be orthodox, as you've shown. It's another thing to say the Church really revealed what is in actuality a "null sets." That's a real distinction. One could believe the Church's set to be "null," but that's different then the Church actually revealing a set that turns out to be "null set."

I say the Church does not reveal "null sets." Even accepting your interpretation of Pope Eugene's comments, it embraces a "null set" if no one is actually in hell with original sin alone.

I do not say the CCC teaches "heresy" in fostering a hope that there are actually no souls in hell with original sin, just as Jehanne's belief that everyone in heaven is actually baptized with water and that no one is in heaven by virtue of a "desire for baptism" is not heresy.

I am however making an argument that, based upon Pope Eugene's teaching, a rejection of the possibility of the infallible magisterium defining a "null set," tradition and the common opinion and the common consensus of the theologians, that it is impossible for the CCC to be right on this.

The difference of my spin is the assertion that, as a logical matter on the basis of necessary consequences from a revealed truth, the hope cannot be valid in light of Pope Eugene's teaching. If the infallible magisterium does not reveal "null sets," the CCC's hope cannot be good for the reasons I've submitted.

I guess the question now, in light of your last post, is: "can the infallible magisterium reveal a 'null set'? I take it you are saying, "no." In light of that, I think you are only confirming my argument, even if one accepts your sense of what Pope Eugene defined - whatever that is.

The CCC's teaching is not heresy. I find it odd, and of consequence, however, that the magisterium is actually proposing it. It is speculation that I believe is rash, and logically impossible given what has been revealed.

Columba,

On baptism of desire, I say the Church in Trent has "revealed" that one is justified by water baptism or "the desire thereof," and that that set is not "null," since Our Lord, through His ministers, does not reveal "null sets."

We part on that.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:That was joke, right? Not only have I never denied the existence of Limbo, I've never denied that if Limbo exists, there are souls there; otherwise, there would be no reason for its existence. I have absolutely no problem with the existence of Limbo.

And you "assume" that I would accept a dogmatic definition by the Supreme Pontiff? Now why would you assume such a thing?

Great. It's good to see that your views are at least reformable. Even though my hypothetical letter to the Pope would likely fall on "deaf ears," (indeed, such a letter would never even reach his desk, which is why I am not going to bother even sending it) I am certainly going to send a letter/email to Bishop Fellay, and this is what I am going to say (not an exact dictation -- things will be a little more formal):

Which only proves that you do not really pay attention. You obviously believe that I “rejected” Limbo, just as you appear to believe that the Church has rejected it as well. Wrong on both counts.

But yes, it is true that if good hope is kept alive for the salvation of unbaptized children, then Limbo would not exist IF all such souls are saved; and goodness, we couldn't have that.

So by all means, write to Bishop Fellay to end this null set “error” by campaigning to have Limbo “defined”; after all, the medieval development of a possible solution and correction to Augustine’s sense suffering is THE “common opinion”; and Limbo should be defined such that the notion of a place of sense suffering is actually a "null set" (oops); it cannot be formally condemned as a heresy, but, as the more common opinion, let it be defined de fide definita as a probable empty "null set"!

Or, Jehanne, since the Church's first priority when defining dogmas is to ensure that a "null set" could not possibly exist with the reformable aspect of the doctrine, you should write your new definition such that sense suffering is formally condemned as a null set heresy, and all of those early papal proclamations on "eternal torments" for unbaptized infants (only to be resurrected by many latter theologians) can finally be formally condemned as heretical.

Bishop Fellay should go for that. No hypocrisy there, right Jehanne?

Anyway, since Tornpage likes to re-write dogmatic definitions based on "logic" and "having a factual predicate", perhaps you can run your original definition by us. See, you don't have to re-write the old one; it doesn't exist, so you can get even more creative than Tornpage who was at least bound by his version of a "factual predicate".

But I must caution you, the first "null set" I spot will be thrown back at you.

Oh, and don’t let the following inconvenient facts get in your way:

The Greek and Latin Fathers of the first four centuries saw in general no more severe penalty for infants who died without Baptism than exclusion from the beatific vision. But St Augustine and the other African Fathers, in opposition to the Pelagians who were holding that infants have no sin, maintained that infants who die in original sin only will still share in the positive misery of the damned, although with a penalty mild enough that they would want to continue in existence. This opinion remained dominant from the fifth to the thirteenth century; a few theologians differed, but St Thomas was the first great theologian to eliminate the pain of suffering from Limbo by reasoning that infants who die in original sin only will live in perfect natural happiness, having lost the blessing of the beatific vision, but with no awareness of having lost it, and this is what the majority of Catholic theologians have continued to hold ever since then. (Abortion and Martyrdom, edited by Aidan Nichols, O.P.)

And, as the ITC states, “Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”. And “Pope Gregory the Great (604 AD) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job.”

The ITC also said that the Council of Carthage of 418, although it “did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism”, it “added that there is no ‘intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life’”.

But the “majority” of theologians who taught Limbo in the latter centuries did not represent a moral universal consensus, as we see from the following:

A survey of the past fifty years indicates that only one theologian in eight has gone as far as "common and certain" in evaluating the immunity of infants from the pain of sense. Kerygmatically the picture is much the same; only one catechetical writing in six has used the word "limbo." Two-thirds of them are completely silent on the question of the pain of sense for infants. A glance at the preceding century shows an even greater hesitation before the problem. This somewhat anomalous situation seems to find its explanation in an earlier age, centuries during which a denial of limbo was protected by decrees of the Holy See.

The whiplash of Augustine's genius carved a channel through Western thought, and the bitter stream of his views on the fate of infants swept up to the shores of the twelfth century. The Schoolmen analyzed and distilled his thought and passed on to the centuries the idea of a limbo that was free of the pain of sense. This conception of the fate of infants coursed nearly unimpeded through the next four centuries. It was not until the sixteenth century that a serious attempt was made to turn the current of thought back into its ancient channel. Prominent in this new movement were Petau, Jansenius, Bossuet, Noris, Berti, and Tamburini. Their motives, methods, and—more important—their reception by the Church are all curiously linked in the tangled history of the time.

One of the by-products of this struggle with heresy was the centering of attention on Augustine. A new reverence for the great doctor began to spread through the Catholic universities of Europe. Men began to turn to his anti-Pelagian writings for inspiration in their wrestling with new problems. These works were read and reread by the theologians of the day; studded as they are with references to unbaptized infants, they began to exert a growing influence. Here and there men began to adopt Augustine's views on the fate of infants. No less than eighteen theologians had done so before the rise of Jansenism, and of these Denis Petau is the most prominent. (LIMBO: A THEOLOGICAL EVALUATION by GEORGE J. DYER, 1958)

So much for your “common opinion” on Limbo as a place devoid of any sense suffering. That was only the unimpeded “common opinion” from the 13th until the 16th century, with the centuries before weighing in favor Augustine’s “bitter stream” and the centuries after seeing many theologians returning to that same bitterness.

Furthermore, consider also the teaching of the widely respected theologian Ludwig Ott who, in 1952, “in a widely used and well-regarded manual, [did] openly teach the possibility that children who die unbaptised might be saved for heaven — though he still represented their going to limbo as the commonly taught opinion”? He wrote:

[20]"Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. Denzinger 712." Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 2, Section 2, § 25 (p. 114 of the 1963 edition) (Wikipedia)

But go ahead and keep pretending that Limbo is THE universal moral consensus and that there is no "real" difference with Augustine's doctrine when what defines Limbo is precisely its unique lack of sense suffering (no "eternal torments") as a place of “natural happiness” (like West Virginia, “almost heaven”).

Returning to Abortion and Martyrdom:

The Church, in the growing awareness of the merciful love of Jesus and the maternal love of Mary, has tended more and more to manifest her hope for the salvation of unbaptized babies. In view of John 3:5, the Church cannot guarantee this, and she must insist that infants be baptized at the earliest reasonable moment after their birth. But aborted babies are a special case. And so, considering the special reasons pertaining to this case as reviewed in the present article, and relying on a wider interpretation of Matthew 2:18 and Jeremiah 31:16, together with Luke 23:43, Luke 2:35, Genesis 3:15, Apocalypse 12:17; Apocalypse 7:14, and a multitude of supporting Scriptural texts, I conclude, subject to the final judgment of the Church, that the Magisterium could proclaim all infants murdered in the womb to be companion martyrs of the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem, cleansed and sanctified at the moment of their death in the redemptive Blood of Christ.”

Good luck with the “letter”.

tornpage wrote:Columba,

On baptism of desire, I say the Church in Trent has "revealed" that one is justified by water baptism or "the desire thereof," and that that set is not "null," since Our Lord, through His ministers, does not reveal "null sets."

We part on that.

I know... It's a strange world.
On this particular teachig in the CCC where I see a reaffimation of constant Church teaching, you see error. And both of us can't be right.

“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.

MRyan wrote:Good luck with the “letter”.

Perhaps you need to read it (again) before commenting on it. I have in mind the following:

Condemned Proposition: "All infanrts who end this life without sacramental Baptism in Water will be saved."

tornpage wrote:Mike,

For in truth, a “null set” may in fact exist in matters pertaining to non-revealed and non-definitive doctrines, precisely because they are reformable.

But we are talking about a revealed doctrine, of which you say a "null set" may indeed be being taught.

No, let's get it straight; we are talking about a reformable and non-revealed aspect of a revealed dogma.

It is a FACT that the eternal fate of unbaptized infants has NOT been defined or settled definitively. Any notion to the contrary would render any theological speculation and any magisterial affirmation of "hope" for their salvation as heretical.

You cannot escape the logic of this true "factual predicate".

tornpage wrote:
You are telling us that there may not be any souls who die with original sin alone, and that would mean the dogma embraces a "null set."

No more than the null set that exists with unbaptized infants who undergo any sense suffering IF they do not in fact suffer "eternal torments", with Pope Gregory the Great saying they certainly do.

Ah, you would say, but this has not been "defined", and I would say "precisely, you're beginning to catch on."

Can we agree then that this whole debate centers on whether it has been formally defined that unbaptized infants do in fact suffer the punishments of hell?

If so, all you have to do is prove it; and I'm still waiting for the actual proof. Logical "inference" is not definitive proof, it is a logical but potentially flawed deduction based on a faulty premise.

tornpage wrote: While you argue with me as to whether there is any factual predicate of actual souls who die with original sin alone behind Pope Eugene's teaching, the fact is, even going with your sense of what is being defined - which may be empty breath, a totally superfluous teaching of the infallible magisterium,

Nonsense, there is no such thing as a "superfluous" teaching of the magisterium just because a given undefined and reformable common opinion is developed to the point where "hope" is given prominence over what was heretofore held as certain loss ("though I do not know if they can have the honor of the Kingdom" ~ St. Ambrose).

tornpage wrote:for it appears that no one may actually die with original sin alone - the set could be "null":

So what, this does not change the infallible fact that souls who die in original sin alone suffer the eternal punishment of hell. Only God knows if unbaptized infants actually suffer such loss.

tornpage wrote:

No, it has not, this is simply Tornpage’s flawed interpolation of the dogma which actually defined that “the souls of those who depart ... in original sin only, descend immediately into hell ..."

Even according to your understanding - not quite sure what that is, it seems to be an "if any soul were to depart in original sin alone they'd go to hell" - the revealed doctrine would be identifying a "null set" if no soul departed in original sin alone. Your distinction still leaves us with the infallible magisterium revealing a "null set."

The revealed dogma defined by the infallible magisterium does not "reveal" null sets, the Church's first priority is to reveal the truth, and if a possible null set is a logical consequence of the non-revealed (reformable) aspect of the dogma (that is open to development), the Church says let the chips fall where they may - the truth comes first and she can only reveal what has been revealed by God.

tornpage wrote:
The debate, as in clear from the CE article on Limbo, is not if these infants were in Bliss, but where are they outside of Heaven, i.e. a Limbo of some sort of natural bliss or a hell of the mildest possible punishment with fire.

Agreed, and if unbaptized infants suffer eternal torments, Limbo is either a "null set" containing no one who does not suffer, or it simply does not exist except as a "null set" in the minds of the Scholastics; and the "common opinion" is reformable, after all.

tornpage wrote:All theologians assumed that there were actually and in fact souls that had died with original sin, i.e. that there was a factual predicate behind Pope Eugene's definition.

An "assumption" is not a dogmatic fact, neither is it infallibly "certain".

tornpage wrote:Show me one theologian, after Pope Eugene's definition and the other early statements of the magisterium about original sin and the fate of those dying with it, who maintained that these infants were saved.

You mean those who entertained the possibility of their salvation, such as Cajetan, Klee, Schell and Ott?

What are these theologians doing even considering such possibilities as "indeed possible", if it has been formally defined that unbaptized infants suffer the punishment of hell? Possibilities such as:

"prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell) (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 2, Section 2, § 25 (p. 114 of the 1963 edition) (Wikipedia)

Moving on:

tornpage wrote:
I have heard of Cardinal Cajetan's opinion as to babies of Catholic or Christian parents - a view I believe was similar to Calvin's - and Tyler Marshall, a member of the Called to Communion blog, had this to say about it:

Obviously, Catholic parents desire for their infant to be baptized. If the infant should die before baptism, one could perceive that the infant received "baptism by desire". In the case of infant baptism, the infant is baptized through profession of faith by the parents and godparents. Why wouldn't the child receive "baptism by desire" through the same intention of the parents? The position was once explored by Thomas Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534). However, Pope Saint Pius V condemned the position and had this passaged removed from Cajetan's works!

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/10/unbaptized-babies-that-die-five.html

Yes, but why did the pope have it removed; because it couldn't possibly be true; or because it went against the more common opinion and, in the present economy, the Church was not ready to sanction it?

tornpage wrote:The "consensus" of the theologians is virtually unanimous, just as with baptism of desire. The question was only, where are these unsaved infants with original sin alone, in Limbo or a hell of punishment?

I'm sorry, but didn't you tell me that unlike salvific baptism of desire (which is not formally "defined"), it was "defined" that unbaptized infants suffer the eternal punishment of hell?

How can any opinion be "virtual", which suggests that it is not unanimous, if any contrary opinion is heresy? Why didn't certain theologians get the "defined" memo, and why can't you produce a single theologian who said that it was "defined dogma" that unbaptized infants suffer the punishment of hell?

tornpage wrote:
Universalists use the same argument you use in claiming everyone is saved: the Church has not said that there is anyone actually in hell, but that if you died in mortal sin you'd go to hell. The Church doesn't know definitively that anyone actually died with mortal sin, etc.

No it is not the same argument ~ far from it. Try showing me any Scripture passage citing the words of our Lord which has Him suggesting that unbaptized infants suffer the punishment of hell, as opposed to His many references to the hell of unquenchable fire reserved for actual sinners.

Good luck with that.

tornpage wrote:So I guess not only the Church, but Christ himself in the Gospels, could reveal "null sets."

Yes, I suppose He could:

“The common teaching of the scholastic theologians is the within the earth there are four inner chambers: one for the damned, another for those being purged of sin, a third for those infants who have died without receiving Baptism, and a fourth which is now empty but once held those just men who died before the passion of Christ.”-Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church

Ah, the Limbo of the Fathers, an empty null set. Oh dear.

tornpage wrote:The CCC's teaching is not heresy. I find it odd, and of consequence, however, that the magisterium is actually proposing it. It is speculation that I believe is rash, and logically impossible given what has been revealed.

And I simply cannot follow such convoluted "logic". Has it been revealed and defined that unbaptized infants suffer the punishment of hell, or not?

You can't have it both ways.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Good luck with the “letter”.

Perhaps you need to read it (again) before commenting on it. I have in mind the following:

Condemned Proposition: "All infanrts who end this life without sacramental Baptism in Water will be saved."

So, the Church should solemnly condemn the proposition that holds “all infants” (versus some, a few, many or most) WILL (or may?) be saved without water baptism?

Now why in the world would she do that – to make room for aborted infants, but not for others?

Yeah, I can just see the Church condemning herself for teaching the hope of salvation for these same unaptized infants.

As I said, good luck with that.

Jehanne,

Seriously, why would the Church ever condemn the proposition "All infants who end this life without sacramental Baptism in Water will be saved", when not a single theologian that I am aware of has ever suggested any such thing.

And neither does the Church, with her doctrine of hope, declare that all such souls WILL be saved.

It's back to the drawing board for you, for what you are having condemned is nothing more that a propositional "null set".

tornpage wrote:

The "consensus" of the theologians is virtually unanimous, just as with baptism of desire. The question was only, where are these unsaved infants with original sin alone, in Limbo or a hell of punishment?

I'm sorry, but didn't you tell me that unlike salvific baptism of desire (which is not formally "defined"), it was "defined" that unbaptized infants suffer the eternal punishment of hell?

I'm sorry, but didn't you say Limbo is in hell and that the denial of the presence of God is punishmeht?

What I meant to say was, Limbo (without the punishment of fire) or hell (with the punishment of fire). Either option is in hell and comprises punishment, and is not salvation.

Really.

And I simply cannot follow such convoluted "logic". Has it been revealed and defined that unbaptized infants suffer the punishment of hell, or not?

You can't have it both ways.

So maybe it is heresy. I don't follow it (them) . . . so I don't care.

Am I a sede? Ask Jehanne.

tornpage wrote:

tornpage wrote:

The "consensus" of the theologians is virtually unanimous, just as with baptism of desire. The question was only, where are these unsaved infants with original sin alone, in Limbo or a hell of punishment?

I'm sorry, but didn't you tell me that unlike salvific baptism of desire (which is not formally "defined"), it was "defined" that unbaptized infants suffer the eternal punishment of hell?

I'm sorry, but didn't you say Limbo is in hell and that the denial of the presence of God is punishmeht?

Really.

Really what? If Limbo exists it is in hell, which has nothing to do with the infallible fact that the absence of the presence is God (the beatific vision) is punishment.

Added (edit) by Tornpage:

What I meant to say was, Limbo (without the punishment of fire) or hell (with the punishment of fire). Either option is in hell and comprises punishment, and is not salvation.

Really.

Really? Thanks for clarifying that. Really.

tornpage wrote:

And I simply cannot follow such convoluted "logic". Has it been revealed and defined that unbaptized infants suffer the punishment of hell, or not?

You can't have it both ways.

So maybe it is heresy. I don't follow it (them) . . . so I don't care.

Am I a sede? Ask Jehanne.

Let me know when you're done clowning around.

If your aren't going to take yourself seriously, or feel it necessary to defend your "defined" assertions, I'm not going to take you seriously either.

MRyan said: Only God knows if unbaptized infants actually suffer such loss.

For me this one line sums up the entire back and forth discussion of us, all the Saints, the Church and the theologians on this issue. The simple answer is we do not know and since we do not know would it not be the high spiritual road to hope and pray for their eternal happiness rather than selfishly saying that I must have a specific answer right now. I totally and completely without even a speck of question or doubt trust in God.

JMJ,

George

Mike,

I really am not concerned if it's heresy or not.

Really.

As to defending the assertion, I think it's clear:

What I meant to say was, Limbo (without the punishment of fire) or hell (with the punishment of fire). Either option is in hell and comprises punishment, and is not salvation.

The only options being considered by the theologians did not include salvation. Cajetan was rejected emphatically - the rest are your 20th century boys, right?

I asked you for something of a better vintage.

tornpage wrote:Mike,

I really am not concerned if it's heresy or not.

Really.

Thanks for finally conceding the argument.

tornpage wrote:As to defending the assertion, I think it's clear:

What I meant to say was, Limbo (without the punishment of fire) or hell (with the punishment of fire). Either option is in hell and comprises punishment, and is not salvation.

The only options being considered by the theologians did not include salvation. Cajetan was rejected emphatically - the rest are your 20th century boys, right?

I asked you for something of a better vintage.

Cajetan is early 16th century; Klee is early and Schell is late 19th century. Ott, of course, is 20th century.

Tell me, do you think a theologian as influential as Cajetan stood alone with his opinion? I’m willing to bet there were other perhaps less notable theologians who agreed with him.

The point is that none of these theologians had any business airing such possibilities if it were any way infallibly certain that unbaptized infants cannot have the hope of salvation.

You don’t care that opposition to your re-write of the dogmatic definition is heresy or not, but you take great umbrage to the fact that I do not care if a null set is a possible logical conclusion to the Church’s doctrine of hope (whether or not Limbo exists, or hell is absent of unbaptized infants); which is in fact a true organic development to a reformable non-defined aspect of the same doctrine – null sets be damned.

Try getting your head around that.

but you take great umbrage to the fact that I do not care if a null set is a possible logical conclusion to the Church’s doctrine of hope (whether or not Limbo exists, or hell is absent of unbaptized infants); which is in fact a true organic development to a reformable non-defined aspect of the same doctrine – null sets be damned.

Umbrage? Nah.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you had said no "null sets" in "revealed" doctrine. If you're - the Church - is right, the set of souls who depart with original sin alone in hell is "null."

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."

And both of the disputed options of the theologians - Limbo or a "hotter" hell - are consistent with the definition.

The point is that none of these theologians had any business airing such possibilities if it were any way infallibly certain that unbaptized infants cannot have the hope of salvation.

I understood your point.

And that hasn't stopped many a theologian.

Yes, and Father Feeney's Bread of Life has never been condemned by the Church, either. Round robin...

tornpage wrote:Cajetan was rejected emphatically

You refuse to acknowledge that this so-called emphatic rejection was more likely the Church simply stating that, being opposed to the common opinion, she was not ready to give his opinion her endorsement, but that does not mean that his teaching was erroneous, or in way heretical.

This reminds me of the difference in perspective between Fr. Harrison and Aiden Nichols in regards to the change in wording to Evangelium Vitae #99, with Nichols saying that "the Holy See softens the sense of this passage, replacing the statement that 'nothing is definitively lost'" and "'your child who is now living in the Lord' "with the assurance that the child can be 'entrust[ed] with sure hope' to 'the Father and his mercy'". Nichols goes on to say that either version can be, and is used, even if the latter is the more "official", and thus, the more authentic version.

Fr. Harrison, on the other hand, calls this change "John Paul II's retraction, in the final and definitive version of Evangelium Vitae #99" (Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?, 2005, Seattle Catholic), as if this "retraction" was a rejection of his previous statement, and not just a "softening" thereof.

However, as I said "In point of fact, the original statement that 'nothing is definitively lost' still holds true if the hope of salvation is not denied to aborted infants (or to unbaptized infants in general)."

tornpage wrote:

The point is that none of these theologians had any business airing such possibilities if it were any way infallibly certain that unbaptized infants cannot have the hope of salvation.

I understood your point.

And that hasn't stopped many a theologian.

I see, and when the magisterium picks up on the same theme and develops the doctrine under her own authority and presents the doctrine of hope to the universal Church .... who cares, call it heresy, call it error, or what have you ... its all rash and arrogant absurdity, and stands opposed to the previous magisterium and to immutable tradition.

Got it; and guess what I have to say to that?

Jehanne wrote:Yes, and Father Feeney's Bread of Life has never been condemned by the Church, either. Round robin...

Who cares; and neither was it ever officially endorsed by the Church (anecdotal third party "endorsement" is not official approbation).

Round robin ... [whatever that means]

Mike,

Earlier in this thread, you stated,

But really, Jehanne, think about what you are saying. Again, what good is having reasons for hope if those reasons are bogus, meaning there are no “good” reasons for hope?

What would be the point of the Roman Catechism teaching,

"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)

if, in fact, no children who die without Baptism lose their salvation? Are you also saying that it is impossible that #1261 could be describing a "null set"? As for Father Feeney, are you saying that it is impossible that a Pope five hundred years from now could not give "formal recognition" to his work, baring the Second Coming, of course!

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."

And both of the disputed options of the theologians - Limbo or a "hotter" hell - are consistent with the definition.

And no one said otherwise; and neither is it inconsistent with the definition when it is said the Church has never defined that unbaptized infants (who die without benefit of the sacrament) suffer the punishment of hell.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Earlier in this thread, you stated,

But really, Jehanne, think about what you are saying. Again, what good is having reasons for hope if those reasons are bogus, meaning there are no “good” reasons for hope?

What would be the point of the Roman Catechism teaching,

"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)

if, in fact, no children who die without Baptism lose their salvation? Are you also saying that it is impossible that #1261 could be describing a "null set"?

You and Tornpage have "null sets" on the brain; I guess we can thank Lionel for that.

The Church has always condemned the sin of presumption, and, as I said, she doesn't tolerate anyone playing Russian Roulette with a "hope" that is left completely in God's hands, and not in her own (that she knows of).

Jehanne wrote:
As for Father Feeney, are you saying that it is impossible that a Pope five hundred years from now could not give "formal recognition" to his work, baring the Second Coming, of course!

Nothing is "impossible" in this regard, but highly unlikely. Why would the Church give her official approbation to a polemical work, especially one written by a priest who was the cause of so much trouble for the Holy Office; so much so that she had to intervene with a disciplinary measure - with Fr. Feeney's doctrine being the cause of much of the trouble?

If there was in fact any grounds for hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, the Church -I suggest- at the very least erred on the side of caution in not proclaiming this hope. Why? Because the hope could be false and she could lead the faithful into presumption and encourage the very thing she was trying to avoid, that is; delaying of the administration of Baptism to infants.

Low and behold, in our time when laxity is at its height, the ever prudent post conciliar Church decides that this would be a great time to promote the idea of hope for the unbaptized, even while maintaining that she knows of no other means apart from Baptism that can assure their salvation. At the same time she discourages belief in Limbo leaving only heaven or hell as the alternatives while implying that hell should be disregarded, not talked about and considered such a far-fetched improbability that only narrow minded, fanatical traditionalists would have the arrogance and lack of charity to consider it real, (you know the type who still believe that reference for the holy Eucharist is pleasing to God).

I would also suggest that the true reason why the Church in the past never proclaimed this hope and even censored the writings of those who did, was not just out of concern for the souls that may be lost through laxity, but rather that she genuineky didn't view such hope as realistic.

What the post conciliar Church calls hope, the pre-conciliar Church called presumption.

columba wrote:Mike there's a point contained in one of your responses to tornpage I've been meaning to get back to. You said;

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.

This is strange. How can you refer to baptism of desire and baptism of blood as a doctrine when the Church teaches 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. ???

The CCC is not merely making this statement in relation to the fate of non-baptized infants, she is saying that, no other means is known apart from Baptism wherby anyone at all can be saved. Therefore the Church cannot be sure that baptism of desire/Blood are salvific; therefore it has to be the case that when referring to baptism of blood/Blood she is speaking of the possibility of another way but not confirming that this other way actually exists.

I know you will answer that the grace of Baptism can be supplied by baptism of desire/blood without the actual reception of the sacrament itself. The problem with this is; if this is certain then another means apart from the sacrament is in fact known and this is contrary to what the Church has already affirmed as quoted above.

Columba, you have to read the CCC in context; with “Section VI, THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM” (1257-1261) forming one seamless whole.

If you would do so, you would soon realize that the CCC is making a distinction between actual sacramental ablution, and the grace of Baptism, and it is the former which is referred to in 1257 when she refers to infants, and the latter with respect to adults; which is easily discerned from her closing sentence which says “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”, and is followed by 1258 and 1259 which makes her meaning even more clear.

In other words, no one can in fact be saved apart from Baptism.

Btw, the same thing applies to a correct reading of the Summa and St. Aquinas’ various statements on the “necessity” of the sacraments, especially where St. Thomas speaks about the absolute necessity of Baptism, which must be read carefully and in context. He didn’t err, and he was not being inconsistent, he knew exactly what he was talking about, and so does the Church.

The Church is not about to get it wrong on matters of salvation, columba, and I wish you would learn to trust her.

columba wrote:
If there was in fact any grounds for hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, the Church -I suggest- at the very least erred on the side of caution in not proclaiming this hope. Why? Because the hope could be false and she could lead the faithful into presumption and encourage the very thing she was trying to avoid, that is; delaying of the administration of Baptism to infants.

No, it cannot be “false” (opposed to the faith) when the Holy Magisterium develops a doctrine -- and she does not approach such developments with a mind to be “novel” or to carelessly reform the common opinion. If she believes there are sold Theological, Scriptural and Liturgical reasons for hope, she also has reasons to develop the doctrine and reason to believe it is time to do so, especially in light of the ravages of abortion and the implications thereof. But “hope” is not certitude, and she is moving very cautiously.

That is what a magisterium does, and she either has the divine authority to do so, or she doesn’t; and if the latter, we cannot trust the ordinary magisterium in anything, but only our own razor sharp discernment of when she gets it right and when she gets it wrong. And, when we declare it is the latter, we can fall back on our own private authority, or the authority of those like us who believe they are smarter than the Church to tell us the Church has “erred” and why her doctrines are “absurd”.

Nowhere, and I mean absolutely nowhere, has there been an attempt by anyone to make the claim that the doctrine of hope can in anyway justify delaying the sacrament of baptism to infants (as if the Church hasn't consistently condemned this idea). If there are such persons, they certainly would not need the doctrine of hope to justify their rebellion, they would do so anyway.

What a lame accusation, backed up by nothing. But, this is columba, after all.

columba wrote:
Low and behold, in our time when laxity is at its height, the ever prudent post conciliar Church decides that this would be a great time to promote the idea of hope for the unbaptized, even while maintaining that she knows of no other means apart from Baptism that can assure their salvation. At the same time she discourages belief in Limbo leaving only heaven or hell as the alternatives while implying that hell should be disregarded, not talked about and considered such a far-fetched improbability that only narrow minded, fanatical traditionalists would have the arrogance and lack of charity to consider it real, (you know the type who still believe that reference for the holy Eucharist is pleasing to God).

What a pathetic pile of manure.

columba wrote:
I would also suggest that the true reason why the Church in the past never proclaimed this hope and even censored the writings of those who did, was not just out of concern for the souls that may be lost through laxity, but rather that she genuineky didn't view such hope as realistic.

Good for you.

columba wrote:
What the post conciliar Church calls hope, the pre-conciliar Church called presumption.

What the post conciliar calls hope, the pre-conciliar Church would also call hope, for the “magisteriums” cannot be opposed – there is only one, and in every age it is of one mind with all previous ages - they are of the same mind - the mind of Christ.

Imagine, columba accusing the Catholic Church of the sin of presumption.

The sin of presumption also applies to Catholics who presume to tell the magisterium that her doctrines are not only absurd, but erroneous.

The Catholic Church with her "weightless", "absurd", "erroneous" and "presumptuousness" doctrines.

Sure.

MRyan wrote:

Columba, you have to read the CCC in context; with “Section VI, THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM” (1257-1261) forming one seamless whole.

I agree Mike; context is everything. But the sentence I chose from 1257 means the same thing regardless of context. It can stand alone as a definitive statement, i.e; as a statement of the current knowledge the Church holds regarding the sacrament of Baptism.
I'm not being sarcastic here when I say that you need to apply the principle of context even moreso when reading Trent 6; 4. being that the modern interpretation of that section is at odds with the rest of Trent's teaching on Baptism.

I also agree that truth is a seemless whole and hence when two contradictory statements appear, only one of those can be in conformity with the truth.

If you would do so, you would soon realize that the CCC is making a distinction between actual sacramental ablution, and the grace of Baptism, and it is the former which is referred to in 1257 when she refers to infants, and the latter with respect to adults;

I have done so, and done so with the prior knowledge that the Church does not know of another means by which the "grace of Baptism" can be effected apart from the sacrament itself. I'm not saying that it is de fide that there is no other means; I'm merely stating that the Church does not know of another means. Do you believe I'm wrong in this? If so I can show you again in 1257 where the Church teaches this, and teaches it concerning all.

which is easily discerned from her closing sentence which says “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”, and is followed by 1258 and 1259 which makes her meaning even more clear.

I must confess that I have great trouble with this statement; not because it isn't true in an objective sense, but subjectively it can't change the current state of knowledge of the Church who declares that even if God is not bound by His sacraments, she knows of no other means apart from the sacrament by which salvation can be assured. Why need mention the fact that God is not bound by His sacraments? Even so, He has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism.

Would it be proper for me to say, "Christ established a Church to which He has bound the salvation of all who will be saved, but He Himself is not bound by His Church, even though His Church is in actual fact His own Mystical Body. He and His Church are one?

In other words, no one can in fact be saved apart from Baptism.

Lets speak clearly. Do you mean water Baptism?

Btw, the same thing applies to a correct reading of the Summa and St. Aquinas’ various statements on the “necessity” of the sacraments, especially where St. Thomas speaks about the absolute necessity of Baptism, which must be read carefully and in context. He didn’t err, and he was not being inconsistent, he knew exactly what he was talking about, and so does the Church.

I've no doubt that St. Thomas and the Church know exactly what they're talking about though the Church judges Thomas and his teachings, not vice versa.
I have no problem at all with baptism of desire being a hope of salvation for those whom Baptism was not granted for whatever reason, but I can't hold it as a doctrine while the Church herself professes that she knows of no other means apart from the sacrament that assures salvation. This is why my hope lies in the miraculous application of the waters o Baptism for all who have made themselves worthy of receiving it.

The contradictions contained within the CCC on the subject of Baptism are greatly lessened if understood within the context of hope.

The Church is not about to get it wrong on matters of salvation, columba, and I wish you would learn to trust her.

Mike I do not trust the CCC as it is an unreliable document (despite its name) for transmitting clearly the beliefs of the Catholic Church and as such, can and has, caused much confusion.
The CCC did not write itself, it had human authors, and these same human authors I do not trust.