Old Covenant circumcision removed Original Sin?

Foot wrote:
But … you are missing the big picture, exactly as Mryan is, due to your lack of faith in the meaning of the true and unchangeable teachings of the Catholic Church.

Well, we can’t have that, so let’s review one of the big picture dogmatic truths, the true and unchangeable meaning of which I am said to deny in the truth denying “just don’t get the big picture” company of St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII (at least I’m in good company):

The Council of Trent: Sess. 6, Ch. I, On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man:

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

I recognize and profess with divine and Catholic Faith every word of this infallible dogmatic prescription, to include “not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom;”.

In fact, I also recognize and profess with divine and Catholic Faith the following infallible dogmatic truth contained in Canon I of the same Session Six, which declares:

If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Putting on my “big picture” glasses, and basing this “big picture” on the authority of the Ecclesia docens (the authoritative, living and ordinary Magisterium as it represented by such Magisterial Encyclicals as Divinum Illud Unum, On the Holy Ghost, Pope Leo XIII), I can begin to walk and chew gum at the same time by recognizing the fact that with its irreformable Canon I, Trent is already providing some dogmatic “context” to its dogmatic explication in Chapter 1 (meaning there is more to the dogma than Chapter 1).

Combing the truths of the two dogmatic precepts (which are dogmatic elements of the same “big picture” dogma), as they apply specifically to the old Dispensation, we may read (not "define") the dogmatic truth as follows:

If any one saith, that man, under the old Dispensation, was justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or through/by the very letter of the law of Moses, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Now, according to C_T and Foot, I am missing the “big picture”; for the true dogma does not allow for any other interpretation other than the one they give it (by “the clear meaning of the words”).

Meaning, of course, that “true Catholics” must recognize and confess that “for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary” to hold that “not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise” from “under the power of the devil and of death” wrought by “original sin”. No problem, but here's the clincher, all "true Catholics", we are told, must also recognize and confess that “by the very letter itself of the law” can ONLY mean that no one under the “sacraments” of the law of nature or under the Old Law could, as Pope Leo XIII magisterially affirmed, be sanctified in the grace of the Holy Ghost by the merit of the redeemer to come.

In other words, the debate among the various theologians on how those under the old law were justified in grace (the mode of operation) is a mute point entirely, for, according to the dogmatic fundamentalists (AKA, the true arbiters of truth and tradition), even though not a single saint or theologian disputes the established doctrine that holds with Leo XIII: “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace”, this is a FALSE doctrine that stands opposed to a dogma of faith declared by Trent in Sess. XI, Ch 1.

So, a true dogmatic reading of the “big picture”, we are told, necessitates the REJECTION of the universal moral consensus of the theologians and the magisterial teaching on the common doctrine as it was presented by Pope Leo XIII in a major teaching Encyclical on the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity and in particular, on The Holy Ghost in the Souls of the Just, as being not only “erroneous”, but absolutely heretical, since this common doctrine stands opposed, allegedly, to defined dogma.

Continuing to look at the "big picture" by actually reading all of Session VI, we read in the same Session of Trent, Ch. IV, that "this translation since the promulgation of the Gospel... to the state of grace ... and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour ... cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written;"

As I asked CT, why would Trent add since the promulgation of the Gospel" to "cannot be effected", if it really meant to say "this translation to justification cannot be effected, since man's creation", since, it is alleged, Trent already "defined" that a means to sanctification was closed to every soul who lived prior to "the promulgation of the Gospel"?

Come on, Foot, give us the "big picture".

And why doesn’t C_T or Foot identify the “error” of Pope Leo XIII and all of the Doctors and theologians for what it is – heresy?

Why are they such cowards and total hypocrites? Is it because poor Pope Leo XIII and the greatest Doctors and theologians of the Church never had the opportunity to read the “true dogma” as it is infallibly presented by that notorious sede sect from whom C_T and Foot derive their specious doctrines?

If defined Dogmas are self-explanatory and need no other explication other than what the words clearly convey, that excuse for “material error” sounds pretty weak, especially when we are speaking about the unanimous consensus of the Doctors of the Church and the Ecclesia docens, who obviously did not see the “big picture” that is held only by a small contingent of sedespleenists (and their sect followers).

This would be comical if this sophistry wasn’t so pathetic. Speaking of which, I am afraid, Foot, that like your sede cult leaders, your “commentaries are so exaggerated, so tendentious, so slapdash, so wanting in logical rigour or theological exactitude as to be worse than worthless.”

This critic (a sede, btw) of your leaders goes on to say:

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed…

So we find Mr [xxxxxxx]:

(a) Radically distorting the meaning of a dogma.
(b) Accusing others of radically distorting the meaning of the very dogma he is twisting in knots.
(c) Pretending to a competence in Latin he needs but does not possess.
(d) Performing intellectual acrobatics to twist meanings and logic while claiming that his crazy "interpretation" is manifestly the only correct one.
(e) Doing all the above because it doesn't suit him to believe what Trent actually defined.

Another grave departure from Catholic orthodoxy is found in Dimond's attitude to those papal decrees and declarations, encyclicals, etc., which fall short of the requirements for pertaining to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Dimond sees no difficulty in arguing that as they are not guaranteed by direct infallibility, they may well contain error and that Catholics are free to reject their contents, indeed sometimes bound to...

As a matter of fact, as Pope Pius XII explains in Humani Generis, and as any serious student of Catholic doctrine knows, Catholics are bound in conscience to submit both exteriorly and interiorly to these non-infallible documents also, and the words of Our Lord "He that heareth you, heareth me" apply to them. [XXXXX] rejects that truth by a combination of ignorance and necessity, for he cannot admit a fact that would at a stroke destroy his false doctrine concerning Baptism in voto.

There we are, XXXX. I am sorry that time prevents me from being more thorough, but I think I have written enough to make it clear why I do not wish to be associated with [XXXXX] in any way.

That about sums it up.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote: I was referring to everyone under the law of circumcision, be they adults, infants, and even females

Even females huh? Thats a new one. Can you provide us with the Church's teaching which claims females under the Old Covenant needed circumcision?

Once again, you deliberately cut off what I said in order to score a cheap point. I immediately followed my statement with '("It is to be noted that for the heathen and the female children of the Israelites the economy of grace which existed in the status legis naturae remained in force even after the proclamation of the law of circumcision.")'

Of course, I do not expect you to understand the teaching of the theologians on the "sacrament" of the natural law (legis naturae), or, for that matter, the "circumcision of the heart" that represents the internal sanctification of every person justified by grace, while the external "sign", in whatever form it takes (depending on the age and its respective law), represents, before the Redemption, an external or legal sanctity - "a sign expressive of this [justifying] faith".

Save your female mutilation videos for someone else.

MRyan wrote:"If any one saith, that man, under the old Dispensation, was justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or through/by the very letter of the law of Moses, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."

Notice everyone that in order for MRyan to justify his position, that he had to actually change the wording of that statement. The sentence "without the grace of God through Jesus Christ" is speaking specifically of laws and works under the New Covenant. MRyan changed it to say "under the old Dispensation". Here we see just how dishonest MRyan is by attempting to literally change an infallible statement's words and therefore its meaning by applying that sentence to Old Covenant laws. This is just shameful and dishonest of MRyan. If there are any judaizers reading this thread, then I'm sure they're proud of MRyan's efforts to distort the truth on this matter. Remember everyone, Trent infallibly teaches initial "justification" occuring only through water baptism so that original sin is removed through that means. So, please don't forget that fact whenever you see MRyan attempting to distort and change the words of Trent to make it seem Trent taught something differently.

MRyan wrote:
As I asked CT, why would Trent add since the promulgation of the Gospel" to "cannot be effected", if it really meant to say "this translation to justification cannot be effected, since man's creation", since, it is alleged, Trent already "defined" that a means to sanctification was closed to every soul who lived prior to "the promulgation of the Gospel"?

Yep, you are correct to understand that teaching as saying that "justification through the merits of Jesus" only became efficacious since the promulgation of the Gospel, and not since man's creation. So therefore that teaching is making my case, not yours. You have been claiming that "justification through the merits of Jesus" worked retro-actively for the jews under the Old Covenant. Trent rejects that and makes only one exception, which is that Jesus' merits only worked retro-actively in regards to redeeming his own mother, the blessed virgin Mary.

MRyan wrote:
And why doesn’t C_T or Foot identify the “error” of Pope Leo XIII and all of the Doctors and theologians for what it is – heresy?

As pointed out to you earlier, Pope Leo XIII was not speaking infallibly in that statement. Also, Doctors and theologians are not infallible. Stop looking to fallible quotes to back up your case. Just one of the infallible statements I provided knocks down all your fallible quotes.

MRyan wrote:
This critic (a sede, btw) of your leaders goes on to say:

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed…

So we find Mr [Dimond]:

(a) Radically distorting the meaning of a dogma.
(b) Accusing others of radically distorting the meaning of the very dogma he is twisting in knots.
(c) Pretending to a competence in Latin he needs but does not possess.
(d) Performing intellectual acrobatics to twist meanings and logic while claiming that his crazy "interpretation" is manifestly the only correct one.
(e) Doing all the above because it doesn't suit him to believe what Trent actually defined.

I see you are attempting to change the topic of this thread. Although, I do understand why you would do such since I've proven your belief on this topic is incorrect. Still you should instead take your hateful tirade against sedevacantists to the Sede section of this Forum. Besides, I'm tired of seeing you constantly complain about what the Dimonds profess to believe, while at the same time you run and hide from their open challenge to a one on one debate.

MRyan wrote:
...Catholics are bound in conscience to submit both exteriorly and interiorly to these non-infallible documents..

Nope, you're wrong. When the Church speaks infallibly on a matter of faith, then a Catholic is to hold to that infallible teaching, while rejecting all the fallible statements that teach contrary to it. Your problem is that you hold to the 'fallible teachings', while rejecting the 'infallible' teachings. You also constantly interpret the 'infallible' teachings through the lense of the 'fallible' teachings, which then makes the 'infallible' statement 'fallible'. Unlike you, I believe the 'infallible' statements literally "as they are written".

MRyan wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote: I was referring to everyone under the law of circumcision, be they adults, infants, and even females

Even females huh? Thats a new one. Can you provide us with the Church's teaching which claims females under the Old Covenant needed circumcision?

Once again, you deliberately cut off what I said in order to score a cheap point. I immediately followed my statement with '("It is to be noted that for the heathen and the female children of the Israelites the economy of grace which existed in the status legis naturae remained in force even after the proclamation of the law of circumcision.")'

I don't deny that God's grace is offered to all, even the heathen through legis naturae(the natural law), but that isn't the grace we are discussing. We are suppose to be discussing sanctifying grace from Jesus' merits which is able to remove original sin. So therefore your explanation of "women being under the law of circumcision" as a means of removing their original sin is not an explanation at all. In fact, its really strange for you to say such a thing.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:"If any one saith, that man, under the old Dispensation, was justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or through/by the very letter of the law of Moses, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."

Notice everyone that in order for MRyan to justify his position, that he had to actually change the wording of that statement. The sentence "without the grace of God through Jesus Christ" is speaking specifically of laws and works under the New Covenant. MRyan changed it to say "under the old Dispensation". Here we see just how dishonest MRyan is by attempting to literally change an infallible statement's words and therefore its meaning by applying that sentence to Old Covenant laws. This is just shameful and dishonest of MRyan. If there are any judaizers reading this thread, then I'm sure they're proud of MRyan's efforts to distort the truth on this matter. Remember everyone, Trent infallibly teaches initial "justification" occuring only through water baptism so that original sin is removed through that means. So, please don't forget that fact whenever you see MRyan attempting to distort and change the words of Trent to make it seem Trent taught something differently.

C_T’s manifest errors are the result of his heresy (error begets error) that holds that no one who lived before Christ was able to be lifted out of original sin by the grace of the merit of the Redeemer to come (with the sole exception of our Blessed Mother).

He simply denies this universal doctrine of the Church as it was magisterially taught and confirmed by Pope Leo XIII in his major Encyclical on The Holy Ghost, that reads:

“It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”. Or, said another way, “Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution” (St. Aquinas).

As we know, C_T holds that this universal truth affirmed by Pope Leo XIII and all of the Doctors and theologians “is indeed FALSE”. This Pharisaical dogmatic fundamentalism (Protestant-like private interpretation) creates a veil of ignorance so thick and so profound that it dares to stand atop its terribly flawed “interpretation” of a dogma of its own mythical creation and shake its arrogant fist at the entire Catholic Church to include the entire patrimony of Saints and Doctors, and even the common Magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff’s in their divinely conferred Primacy and role as guardians of the faith.

C_T does not seem to realize that he is the one who has actually “changed the wording” of both Scripture and the dogmatic texts of Florence and Trent so that they conform to his fallible and fallacious interpretation of the “words”, “as it is written”.

This is why he fails to see that Trent, in Sess. 6, Ch. I, On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man and Canon I of the same Chapter can be read as one seamless whole when the latter solemnly and definitively declares:

If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

C_T severs the dogmatic continuity that exists between the two dogmatic prescriptions by insisting that “without the grace of God through Jesus Christ” cannot apply “to Old Covenant laws”, where not only does the dogmatic prescription say nothing of the kind, it nowhere even suggests such a perverse meaning to its clear words.

Canon I is a universal dogmatic prescription that does not differentiate between the two dispensations with respect to the inability of human nature and “the law” (to include the moral and ceremonial laws of the old dispensation, and “not even … by the very letter itself of the law of Moses”) to justify man before God … “without the grace of God through Jesus Christ”.

Trent solemnly declared ex cathedra that no man born in any age can be justified by God “without the grace of God through Jesus Christ”, de fide definita, not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses.

C_T goes on to say:

Yep, you are correct to understand that teaching [Session 6, Ch. 4] as saying that "justification through the merits of Jesus" only became efficacious since the promulgation of the Gospel, and not since man's creation. So therefore that teaching is making my case, not yours. You have been claiming that "justification through the merits of Jesus" worked retro-actively for the jews under the Old Covenant. Trent rejects that and makes only one exception, which is that Jesus' merits only worked retro-actively in regards to redeeming his own mother, the blessed virgin Mary.

Actually, if you had said that “this justification … cannot be effected, since the promulgation of the Gospel” refers to the fact that “this” fulfilled justification represents the substantial habitation and “giving” of the Holy Ghost which is not of the “same kind” as under the old dispensation, you would have been correct (though you cannot say this).

However, you would have still missed the point; the point being that the grace of justification was made available and was applied to the properly disposed souls under the old dispensation by the merit of the Redeemer to come, even if this state of justice (sanctifying grace) did not make the justified soul a fully adopted son of God, as Pope Leo XIII magisterially explained.

Your statement that “Trent rejects” that "’justification through the merits of Jesus’ worked retro-actively for the Jews under the Old Covenant” is totally without merit, and what is gratuitously asserted in gratuitously denied.

C_T wrote:
I don't deny that God's grace is offered to all, even the heathen through legis naturae (the natural law), but that isn't the grace we are discussing. We are suppose to be discussing sanctifying grace from Jesus' merits which is able to remove original sin.

And that is precisely what we are discussing, and your heretical denial of “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning [Abraham,] the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, as well as Sts. Joseph and St. Anne, the mother of our Blessed Mother, for each of these “just” souls, you allege, remained as “children of wrath” at enmity with God in the state of original sin, and in no way could be considered “children of God” until actual water baptism was conferred on their miraculously restored but not-yet glorified bodies by which they received the long-awaited grace of internal regeneration.

For the benefit of Columba, remember, Scripture speaks of the risen saints as having “appeared” in their bodies to many in Jerusalem, and says nothing about whether this “appearance” was anything more than just that, meaning it was not necessarily a true resurrection and restoration of their corrupted bodies with their eternal souls.

The notion is actually quite heterodox for it forces us to speculate that these same risen souls were made to die again so that their bodies can participate in the general resurrection. More likely, the “appearance” was a divine manifestation for the purpose of providing visible witnesses to the power of our Lord's Resurrection over death, as the saints and doctors commonly teach, and it is nothing more than that (that should be “enough”).

The Holy Ghost does not “reside” in the souls of the Just by “actual grace”, so you allege that the Holy Ghost did not sanctify (“reside”) in the souls of the just at all, since not a single soul except our Blessed Mother received the grace of justification by the merit of the Redeemer to come.

This is the Feast of St. Anne, the Mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and we read in the Marian Missal (1962) that “St. Anne, the spouse of Joachim, was the mother of Our Lady and he grandmother of Our Lord.” The Collect says:

O God, who didst vouchsafe to bestow upon blessed Anne such grace that she was found worthy to become the mother of her who brought forth Thine only-begotten Son: mercifully grant that, we who celebrate her festival, may be helped by her intercession with thee. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ …

C-T has the audacity to state that our Lord, “who didst vouchsafe to bestow upon blessed Anne such [actual] grace that she she was found worthy to become the mother of her who brought forth Thine only-begotten Son”, while remaining under the dominion of the devil as a “mass of perdition”, and a “child of wrath” at enmity with, and estrangement from, God and her own Immaculate daughter and the Mother of God she would bear in her womb.

That is precisely the “dogma” of C_T, and it is the dogma of the devil.

I will continue to expose the heresy of C_T in a follow-up post by demonstrating how C_T changes the words and meaning of Scripture to make them conform to his novel and heterodox doctrine.

To give just one brief example, C_T misappropriates the term “Judaizers” as its true designation refers only to those Jewish converts who insisted that they must (under the law) retain and practice some of the old rituals (such as circumcision) in conjunction with the sacraments and ceremonies of the new law. These are the “Judaizers” St. Paul refers to, which has nothing at all to do with the true doctrine on the justification of the saints under the old dispensation and the indirect role of circumcision to that end (ex opere operantis).

It is clear that C_T accuses St. Thomas Aquinas and all of the other Doctors of the Church, as well as Pope Leo XIII (and the Magisterium - and the entire Catholic Church), of being "Judaizers” for teaching, with the “Baptism of Desire crowd”, that “circumcision under the Old Covenant removed original sin” (as efficient cause), when they teach no such thing. It is a bold-faced lie, as we have proven over and over again.

Pity that the man is so terribly confused.

But first ... some unfinished business:

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And why doesn’t C_T or Foot identify the “error” of Pope Leo XIII and all of the Doctors and theologians for what it is – heresy?

As pointed out to you earlier, Pope Leo XIII was not speaking infallibly in that statement. Also, Doctors and theologians are not infallible. Stop looking to fallible quotes to back up your case. Just one of the infallible statements I provided knocks down all your fallible quotes.

Pope Leo XIII was not speaking off-the-cuff in a major Encyclical in one loosely guarded or ambiguous tangential statement as a private Doctor, he taught with the clarity, authority and infallible Primacy of his Teaching office when expounding upon The Holy Ghost in the Souls of the Just as she has always understood the doctrine.

He devoted three lengthy paragraphs to a doctrinal and magisterial explication where he magisterially confirmed and reaffirmed the established truth which declares: “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures”, whose “justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

With C_T’s “infallible” interpretation of Trent and Florence “as it is written”, by which he accuses the Church and all of her Doctors and theologians of "error", C_T simply refuses to address the matter of alleged “heresy” contained within the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII that is repeated by the sovereign Pontiff over and over again as if the Church has always held this "heretical" doctrine.

What kind of Catholic sensus fidelium obliterates an entire tradition and the common universal doctrine of St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Doctors of the Church and Pope Leo XIII? Especially when the latter taught only received tradition (in the united magisterial “WE” of his solemn teaching office) when he exercised the supreme Primacy (with the infallible assurance of Christ’s words, “He who hears you, hears Me”) by re-affirming the same common and infallible doctrine that holds with magisterial unanimity and certainty that “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace”?

In his Encyclical on the Holy Ghost, Pope Leo XIII taught nothing less than that which had been handed down “belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei … taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, [and that] The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary On The Concluding Formula of The Professio Fidei”).

“These sublime truths, …” said Pope Leo XIII in the same major Encyclical, “are the teachings and exhortations which We have seen good to utter, in order to stimulate devotion to the Holy Ghost.”

That we owe this doctrinal truth at least the assent of the mind and will towards the authority of the eccleia docens (I would argue that we owe the assent of faith to a universal and ordinary teaching), as confirmed by Pope Pius XII when he taught “Nor should we think that the things taught in Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their Magisterium … of which it is also correct to say: 'He who hears you, hears me.'", C_T responds:

Nope, you're [Pope Pius XII is] wrong. When the Church speaks infallibly on a matter of faith, then a Catholic is to hold to that infallible teaching, while rejecting all the fallible statements that teach contrary to it [Divinum Illud Munum, Scripture, the Doctors, etc. etc.] Your problem is that you hold to the 'fallible teachings', while rejecting the 'infallible' teachings. You also constantly interpret the 'infallible' teachings through the lense of the 'fallible' teachings, which then makes the 'infallible' statement 'fallible'. Unlike you, I believe the 'infallible' statements literally "as they are written".

You most certainly do NOT demonstrate that you “believe the 'infallible' statements literally ‘as they are written’", you believe them as you “literally” and falsely interpret them and then accuse the greatest Doctors of the Church and the Church’s pontifical magisterium of heresy for not agreeing with your Pharisaical, fallible and farcical interpretation of the dogma. “Scriptorium” at FE had you pegged, when, upon washing his hands of any further engagement with you, said:

Please note that having "infallible" statements does not make one's arguments infallible. And having "fallible" statements does not make one's arguments fallible. So one must realize that in using any teaching, when relying on one's own understanding of a teaching in contradiction to the understanding and general teaching of the Bride of Christ, one stands on sandy ground to say the least. Let us not deceive ourselves -- in wielding "infallible" teachings, we ourselves are not protected in any way in terms of our own ability to error. God never built that into the structure of the Church's teaching system, nor do laymen in most cases have a mission to preach. Furthermore such tactics are widely employed to back people into a corner. (Protestants attempt to back Catholics in the corner with the Bible.) But no Catholic is bound in any way to be backed into a corner of the other's making, because we believe in both the ordinary and the extraordinary teachings of the Church. The poster presents an incomplete picture which he tries to foist onto me. Dogmatic minimalism is often a prelude to error or a pretext to holding error. And let's just admit to each other that we probably do not have in our midst one who will set the barque of Peter straight on any given theological question, so we must observe humility in terms of our own estimation of understanding, influence, and knowledge.

Scriptorium is being too kind. Of course, the only one being backed into a corner is C_T, even though he actually believes his twisted “argument” is unassailable.

“Stop looking to fallible quotes to back up your case” means “stop looking to the teaching authority of the Church” when its universal teaching holds that “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace”, because this "fallible" teaching of the Pope in a major Encyclical is opposed to MY fallible interpretation of a dogmatic text -- which interpretation cannot be in error as I understand it, “as it is written”.

Oh, and that you cannot produce the testimony of a single Pope, Saint, Doctor or theologian who actually supports your private interpretation of Florence and Trent, which stands in complete opposition to received tradition and the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, is simply irrelevant to one of the self-proclaimed "true arbiters of truth and tradition".

Such hubris leaves one shaking one’s head in utter disbelief at the prospect that such appalling ignorance is not feigned or affected, it’s the real thing.

Now that's scary.

C_T wrote:
You've already admitted that Florence and Trent both infallibly teach that original sin was not removed by circumcision [as efficient cause] under the Old Covenant. Therefore if you're now claiming it was by their "faith alone" that enabled them to receive grace whereby original sin is removed, then why call yourself a Catholic? You apparently have accepted the protestant "faith alone" heresy as your own. Perhaps a Lutheran Forum would be more suitable for your taste.

C_T is being provocative by setting up a red herring (Reductio ad absurdum) that only demonstrates the utter absurdity and paucity of his own “doctrine”.

I never said, with respect to the just under the old dispensation, “it was by their ‘faith alone’ that enabled them to receive grace whereby original sin is removed”; but if that is C_T’s conclusion based on the fact that the “works of the [old] law” were non-efficacious means of grace, leaving “faith alone” as the sole means of justification, perhaps it is because he read the “Judaizer” St. Paul, who said "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval." (Hebrews 11:1-2)

And what did he mean by “divine approval”? He tells us:

Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. (Romans 26-30)

So tell us, C_T, how can anyone be justified in circumcision by faith, if no one under the old law was ever justified?

Was St. Paul a “Judaizer”, and did he preach the heresy of Martin Luther on “faith alone”?

The Council of Trent, in the sixth session a Decree On Justification, Chapter 8, declares:

"And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed…And we are said to be justified by grace because nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For ‘if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,’ as the Apostle says, ‘grace is no more grace.’ [Rom. 11]"

Ephesians 2:8-10 declares: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

We can see from this that there are two types of works. There are works that we can do on our own - such as works of the law - which do not save us, and there are "good works" that are only made possible by the infinite power of God’s grace working in our lives.

The Council of Trent in the sixth session, on its Decree On Justification, chapter XVI, states,

…Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ.

Gal 3:11: "The law will not justify anyone in the sight of God, because we are told: "the righteous man finds life through faith.."

And yet, C_T seems to hold that one can only be justified by faith and the “work” of sacramental baptism, otherwise, man could be justified by “faith alone”.

C_T apparently confuses the gift of Baptism (the sacrament of faith, without such faith no man was ever justified) with the fulfillment of a justifying “work” of the law when the saving grace of Baptism is actually a work of God. Yes, it is also a “work” by way of divine and ecclesiastical precept from which no man is exempt; however, as Trent makes clear, nothing by way of “work” can merit initial justifying grace (except by entreaty through man’s cooperation with grace), and only when man is justified by the grace of baptism can his works become meritorious (not by faith alone).

St. James, in 2:20-24, must be read in context when he declares:

Do realise, you senseless man that faith without good deeds is useless. You sure know that Abraham our father was justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? There you see it: faith and deeds were working together; his faith became perfect by what he did. This is what scripture really means when it says: 'Abraham put his faith in God, and this was counted as making him justified; and that is why he was called the friend of God.' You see now that it is by doing something good, and not only by believing, that a man is justified".

Please tell us, C_T, how Abraham could be justified and counted as a “friend of God” by putting his faith in God when your specious “infallible” doctrine “as it is written” tells us this is all a lie, that Abraham remained, like everyone else under the old dispensation, at enmity with God as a child of wrath and a mass of perdition until his corrupted body was restored upon our Lord’s death and resurrection, and he received actual sacramental ablution by Angels, by the Apostles who were in hiding, or by Leprechauns.

As Fr. Harrison explains:

… what James is teaching is that having been initially justified by faith, we must persevere in good works as well as in faith, in order to grow or increase in "justice"—that is, in holiness or righteousness. The example he uses of Abraham helps us to understand his point. Abraham was first justified by faith, when he came to believe God's call and promise (Gen 15:6). Afterwards, he was justified still further by the "work"—the obedient act—of being prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac at god's command (Gen 22). (JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, Rev. Brian W. Harrison, M.A., S.T.L., http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSFAITH.htm)

So please tell us, C_T, was Abraham initially justified by faith (Gen 15:6), and still further justified with an increase in grace in Gen 22, or did he remain at enmity with God as a “child of wrath” mired in original sin and death until he received the sacrament of baptism upon our Lord’s Resurrection, as he waited in the limbus partum to enter heaven upon our Lord’s glorification?

This is just one more example of C_T changing the very words and meaning of Scripture so they mean the opposite of what they say. He does this by changing the meaning of “Justification”, by which the Church means the translation to a state of grace by the merit of the Redeemer.

However, C_T does not accept that the just of the old law were actually “justified” by “faith in the redeemer to come”, so he must change the meaning of what it means to be “just” under the old law. Now this gets tricky (and absurd) because if it can only mean an external or legal (forensic) sanctity (by works of the law), and not an internal sanctity (by faith), then St. Paul and St. James can be added to the long list of know-nothings and error-prone witnesses to the true faith who simply got the doctrine of justification completely wrong, for this Apostolic doctrine leaves no doubt as to their belief that the saints under the old dispensation were justified by faith in the Redeemer to come.

"Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3, citing Gen 15:6) "... it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee." (Trent, Sess VI, Ch 6)

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise." (Hebrews 11: 8-9)

Hebrews is talking about a saving Faith, as Heb 11-2 confirms (“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval.")

I’m not sure how the “men of old” could receive “divine approval” as “friends of God” by putting their faith in God (in the Redeemer to come) while remaining in the state of perdition -- the state of original sin and at enmity with God, and certainly not as a child or friend. Perhaps C_T can inform us; inquiring minds want to know.

Romans 3:31 -- “Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.”

Perhaps a Lutheran Forum would be more suitable for your taste.

C_T wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Pope Leo XIII who makes reference to the Angelic Doctor no less than 10 times in his Encyclical on the Holy Spirit, Divinum Illud Munus, where our esteemed Pontiff infallibly confirms that before Christ (and of course before the institution of Baptism) “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” in the “Souls of the Just” who were “numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

You think this encyclical is infallible? You do know that encyclicals are not infallible in and of themselves don't you? Now it is possible for an encyclical to contain an infallible teaching of the Church, so if what Pope Leo XIII said is infallible, then site the original infallible Church teaching. If you're unable to do so, then you cannot make the claim that Pope Leo XIII's statement in this encyclical on this particular subject is infallible.

The “original infallible Church teaching” proposed by Pope Leo XIII that confirms and reaffirms that “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” in the “Souls of the Just” who were “numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, is found in the inerrant and inspired words of Holy Scripture, as my last post with the many citations from Genesis, St. Paul and St. James proves; e.g.,

Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. (Romans 26-30)

Here is another example of the “original infallible Church teaching” proposed by Pope Leo XIII that confirms and reaffirms that “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” in the “Souls of the Just” who were “numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, as found in the inerrant and inspired words of Holy Scripture, in this case, Romans 4: 9-13:

This blessedness then doth it abide in the circumcision, or in the prepuce also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was *reputed to justice. How was it reputed? in circumcision, or in prepuce? Not in circumcision, but in prepuce. And *he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith that is in prepuce, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: And might be father of circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faith that is in the prepuce of our father Abraham. For not by the Law was the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world: but by the justice of faith.

And here is how the Church/tradition has always understood these inerrant passages, as confirmed by scholastic commentary found in the Rheims New Testament of 1582:

*The word, Reputed, doth not diminish the truth of the justice, as though it were reputed for justice, being not justice indeed, but signifieth, that as it was in itself, so God esteemed and reputed it, as the same Greek word must needs be taken v. 4. next going before, and 1 Cor. 4:1 and elsewhere.

7. Covered. 8. not imputed. ] You may not gather (as the Heretics do) of these terms, covered, and, not imputed, that the sins of men be never truly forgiven, but hidden only. For that derogateth much to the force of Christ's blood and to the grace of God, by which our offenses be truly remitted. He is the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, that washeth, and blotteth out our sins. Therefore to cover them, or, not to impute them, is, not to charge us with our sins, because by remission they be clean taken away: otherwise it were but a feigned forgiveness. See St. Augustine in Psal. 31 enarrat. 2

11. And *he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith that is in prepuce, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice:

* Our Sacraments of the new Law give ex opera operato that grace and justice of faith which here is commanded, whereas circumcision was but a sign or mark of the same.

Now where have we heard that before? From St. Thomas Aquinas and all of the theologians and Doctors of the Church; who sound remarkably like St. Paul when the latter said:

“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith … that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: … but to them also that follow the steps of the faith … For not by the Law was the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world: but by the justice of faith … For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

When we combine this universal Catholic truth and understanding of Holy Scripture with the same testimony and tradition of the universal Church and all of her Saints and Doctors, there can be no doubt that the subject magisterial declaration of Pope Leo XIII was a “confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff … not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary On The Concluding Formula of The ‘Professio Fidei’).

C_T has actually backed himself into a corner by way of a dilemma he will not be able to resolve until he admits the truth of Catholic teaching and abandons his Protestant-like Pharisaical fundamentalism which is defined by an extreme and fallacious private interpretation of dogma.

Perhaps C_T cannot be blamed for repeating the Feeneyite inspired logical fallacy (that was never held by Fr. Feeney, but is maintained by Otremer6 and a very small handful of other dogmatic delinquents) that holds that if anyone was ever justified by regenerative grace by the merit of the Redeemer before the Ascension and Glorification our Lord, he would have, by necessity, to have entered into the kingdom of Heaven; and thus, “It is indeed [false]” (sorry, Pope Leo XIII) to say that anyone could have been justified by the merit of the Redeemer to come prior to His Glorification; however, this fallacious logical fallacy and heterodox “interpretation” of Catholic doctrine is totally at odds with the truth.

Now for the “dilemma” that this perverse fallacy creates. C_T wrote:

either Jesus had brought these Old Testament Saints into the New Covenant by baptizing them when Jesus had descended into Hell or these Saints were baptized sometime after they had risen from their graves. In any case, they would not have been able to enter Heaven unless they were "born again" and Jesus tells us in John 3:5 how one becomes born again (Water baptism). … There is one Saint, however, whose justification was derived from Christ's merits before Christ came to us through his incarnation,.. [Our Blesssed Mother].

The implications for holding such a belief are quite astounding, for note well what C_T is saying: That, with the obvious exception of Our Blessed Mother, not a single soul prior to the Redemption was ever justified by God by faith in the Redeemer to come, and that no one was able to be justified until that person (who somehow found favor with God while remaining at enmity with Him) was joined to his corrupted but miraculously risen material body and received the Sacrament of material water Baptism, the forgiveness of sins and - justification.

What are some of the implications? For starters, it means that the remittance of sins for the “just” who lived before the Redemption never took place. It means when our Lord forgave the sins of specific individuals, their sins were not REALLY forgiven until they received water Baptism either before or after death (for they could not be justified until they were baptized after our Lord’s Glorification).

For example, Luke 7:46-50:

My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace.

Haydock comments:

Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. In the Scripture, an effect sometimes seems attributed to one only cause, when there are divers other concurring dispositions; the sins of this woman, in this verse, are said to be forgiven, because she loved much; but (v. 50,) Christ tells her, thy faith hath saved thee. In a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow, and other pious dispositions. Wi.

Keep in mind, as you shake your heads in disbelief at this heterodoxy of C_T which says that this woman was not REALLY forgiven her sins (and justified thereby - by faith and charity) by her Creator (who is the very embodiment of the law of grace) because she had not yet received water Baptism, which alone, declares C_T, can remit sins and place one in a state of justification.

C_T's "dogma" allows for NO exceptions except for Our Blessed Mother; no one else was ever justified, not Abraham, not Job, not Moses, not King David, not Zacharie, not Elisabeth, not John the Baptist, not Simeon, not Anna, not St. Anne (the mother of Our Lady), not The Holy Innocents, not even St. Joseph or St. Dismas, despite the “promise” of our Lord that Dismas would be with Him in “Paradise” that very Good Friday - and not this contrite sinner who washed our Lord's feet with oil and tears and who "loved much", "And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace."

"[S]afe; go in peace?" While still mired in original sin as a mass of perdition? Did our Lord just "feign forgiveness", C_T?

You need to come clean and stop this nonsense.

Speaking of Zachary, we read again the inerrant word of St. Luke (1:5-6):

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth. And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame.

Perhaps C_T can explain how Zachary and Elizabeth could be “just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame”, all the while remaining at enmity with God in original sin?

Here is what Haydock and the Rheims NT commentaries have to say:

Haydock: Both just, . . . walking . . . without blame. [3] Not that in the sight of God they were exempt even from all lesser feelings, which are called venial faults; but only [color]from such sins as might make them forfeit the grace and favour of God. Wi.

Rheims: 6. Just before God.] Against the heretics of this time, here it is evident that holy men be just, not only by the estimation of them, but in deed and before God.

6. In all the commandments.] Three things to be noted directly against the Heretics of our time, first, that good men do keep all God's commandments. Again, that the keeping and doing of the commandments is properly our justification.

6. Justifications.] This word is so usual in the Scriptures (namely in the Psal. 118) to signify the commandments of God, because the keeping of them is justification, and the Greek is always so fully correspondent to the same, that the heretics in this place (otherwise pretending to esteem much of the Greek) blush not to say, that they avoid this word of purpose against the justification of the Papists.

It would appear that the “heretics of our time” are still with us.

According to C_T, each of the “justified” souls named in the OT (the inerrant word of God) remained captive to the devil as a child of wrath and a mass of perdition at enmity with God until our Lord’s death and Resurrection when the “saints” were once again joined with their miraculously re-formed material bodies, and received the grace of water Baptism by Angles or Apostles, only to die again so their souls could enter into Heaven upon Our Lord's Glorification.

Remember, in “speculating” about the "just" souls in the Limbo of the Fathers being raised with their material bodies for the reception of water baptism (by persons/Angels unknown), we are talking about every single soul since Adam and Eve who found favor with God by keeping (through faith and charity) the moral law and, since the time of Moses, the Commandments.

Where is the evidence from tradition for one of the greatest exhibitions of God’s power for the miraculous fulfillment of His own divine precept which allegedly declares that no man ever was or ever can be justified without actual water Baptism?

Is this how the ordinary contingencies in the plan for man’s salvation were preordained by God, such that He forces Himself (preordains) to perform a stupendous miracle (He keeps hidden) for the salvation of the “mass of perdition” who somehow were “just” and found favor with Him while remaining in enmity with Him as children of wrath, and were waiting to be justified and saved in the limbus patrum?

Crickets.

Rather strange, that. One cannot make this stuff up.

In typical Protestant-like fashion, C_T claims that no one could have been justified prior to the Resurrection of Christ because they were under the law of sin, while the “the law of grace” pertains exclusively to the new dispensation. Like most fundamentalists and heretics, he gets it partially right, but misses the greater truth, as we shall see by examining Romans 3: 8-11, which says:

Why am I also yet judged as a sinner, and not (as we are blasphemed, and as some report us to say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just. What then? do we excel them? No, not so. For we have argued the Jews and the Greeks, all to be under sin: As it is written: That there is not any man just, There is not that understandeth. there is not that seeketh after God..

Again, the Rheims NT commentary of 1582:

10. Not any just. ] ]These general speeches, that both Jew and Gentile be in sin, and none at all just, are not so to be taken, that none in neither sort were ever good: the Scriptures expressly saying that Job, Zacharie, Elisabeth, and such like, were just before God, and it were blasphemy to say that these words alleged out of the 13 Psalm, were meant in Christ's mother, [color]in St. John the Baptist, in the Apostles, etc. For, this only is the sense: that neither by the law of nature, nor law of Moses, could any man be just or avoid such sins as here be reckoned, but by faith and the grace of God, by which there were a number in all ages (specially among the Jews) that were just and holy, whom these words touch not, being spoken only to the multitude of the wicked, which the Prophet maketh as it were a several body conspiring against Christ, and persecuting the just and godly, of which ill company he saith, that none was just nor feared God.[/color]

And we know this explanation is factually and doctrinally correct because St. Paul says the exact same thing in various places.

Finally, and this is the final nail in the heretical coffin, anyone following C_T’s “dogma” would have to conclude that “justification” under the old dispensation has more in common with the heretical doctrine of Martin Luther and Calvin than it does with the true doctrine of the Catholic Church. For, as C_T makes abundantly clear, the “justification” of Abraham and all of the other saints of the old dispensation was NOT one of imputed inner sanctity, so it could ONLY have been a “covering” of “the sins of men” that were not “truly forgiven, but hidden only”, or, as Luther said:

"I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so" (Luther's Works, Vol. 34, page 184).

“Perhaps a Lutheran Forum would be more suitable for your taste.”

Indeed.

Columba, are you buying into the C_T dogma? Say it isn't so.

C_T wrote:

Yep, [it is] correct to understand that teaching [Session 6, Ch. 4] as saying that "justification through the merits of Jesus" only became efficacious since the promulgation of the Gospel, and not since man's creation. So therefore that teaching is making my case, not yours. You have been claiming that "justification through the merits of Jesus" worked retro-actively for the jews under the Old Covenant. Trent rejects that and makes only one exception, which is that Jesus' merits only worked retro-actively in regards to redeeming his own mother, the blessed virgin Mary.

No, it is not “correct” to say “that "justification through the merits of Jesus" only became efficacious since the promulgation of the Gospel”, for "justification through the merits of Jesus" became efficacious at the moment of the Redemption ("In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, -according to the riches of his grace…" (Eph. 1:7). “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” (Gal. 5:6)

And “faith working in love” is not unique to the new law with respect to its efficacy, as Scripture, the Doctors and the infallible Magisterium attest (e.g., "As to those under the Old Testament who through faith were acceptable to God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were not justified except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the New Testament." (See below for the complete text of St. Thomas Aquinas).

Jehanne, thanks for pointing this out.

So Trent “rejected” no such thing and in fact dogmatically confirmed, in Sess, 6, Ch. 6, that:

Concerning this disposition [for justification] it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

Now it is absolutely true that the general thrust of this dogmatic decree has in mind the new law of grace as it is relates to and finds its perfection in the sacrament of Baptism. Chapter VII of the same session infallibly declares that Baptism is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, “the instrumental cause” of justification and “the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified … [justification cannot be effected without baptism, “or the desire thereof” (Ch. IV)] - a "desire" (charity) which vivifies faith, without which faith it is impossible to please God.

Trent is clearly intimating that prior to the institution of Baptism, man was justified by faith (in the Redeemer to come), the necessary dispositions for which included an implicit desire for Baptism (implicit in one's faith and charity in God), of which, circumcision was a sign; otherwise, why would Trent in Chapter VI cite Hebrews 11:6 when it declared “Concerning this disposition [being “disposed unto the said justice”] it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee”?

The Rheims New Testament of 1582, in it Annotation for Hebrews, Chapter 11, tells us the specific purpose of St. Paul’s exhortation when it says:

The Apostle's purpose then is nothing else, but to prove to the Hebrews (who made so great account of their Patriarchs and forefathers and their famous acts) that all these glorious personages and their works were commendable and acceptable only through the faith they had of Christ, without which faith none of all their lives and works should have profited them any whit: the Gentiles doing many noble acts (as Heretics may also do) which are of no estimation before God, because they lack faith. And that is the scope of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and of all other passages where he commendeth faith…

And:

No works of the Patriarchs or any other profitable, but by their faith in Christ. Which is always the Apostle's meaning in commending faith.

The same Rheims NT commentary prefaces St. Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews by saying:

He exhorteth them by the definition of faith, to stick unto God, though they see not yet his reward: showing that all the Saints aforetime did the like, being all constant in faith, though not one of them received the promise, that is, the inheritance in heaven: but they and we now after the coming of Christ receive it together.

C_T's denial that St. Paul is referring to a justifying faith in Christ when he speaks of "faith" in the old dispensation is refuted by the Anglelic Doctor in his Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part , Question 107. The new law as compared with the old. Article 1. Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?:

We must therefore say that, according to the first way, the New Law is not distinct from the Old Law: because they both have the same end, namely, man's subjection to God; and there is but one God of the New and of the Old Testament, according to Romans 3:30: "It is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." According to the second way, the New Law is distinct from the Old Law: because the Old Law is like a pedagogue of children, as the Apostle says (Galatians 3:24), whereas the New Law is the law of perfection, since it is the law of charity, of which the Apostle says (Colossians 3:14) that it is "the bond of perfection."

Reply to Objection 2. All the differences assigned between the Old and New Laws are gathered from their relative perfection and imperfection. [...] Hence the New Law which derives its pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our hearts, is called the "Law of love": and it is described as containing spiritual and eternal promises, which are objects of the virtues, chiefly of charity...

Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who, having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament there are some carnal men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law; and these it was necessary, even under the New Testament, to lead to virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises.

But although the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless it did not confer the Holy Ghost by Whom "charity . . . is spread abroad in our hearts" (Romans 5:5).

Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (106, A1,2), the New Law is called the law of faith, in so far as its pre-eminence is derived from that very grace which is given inwardly to believers, and for this reason is called the grace of faith. Nevertheless it consists secondarily in certain deeds, moral and sacramental: but the New Law does not consist chiefly in these latter things, as did the Old Law. As to those under the Old Testament who through faith were acceptable to God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were not justified except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the New Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (Hebrews 11:26) that he esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of the Egyptians."

Trent Sess. 6, Ch. VIII. “In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously”, sums it all up:

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Romans 2: 29 “But he that is in secret, is a Jew: and the circumcision of the heart, in spirit, not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

The Annotation from The Rheims New Testament of 1582:

29. In spirit, not letter.] The outward ceremonies, Sacraments, threats, and commandments of God in the Law, are called the letter: the inward working of God in mens heart, and enduing him with faith, hope, and charity, and with love, liking, will, and ability to keep his commandments by the grace and merits of Christ, are called the spirit. In which sense, the carnal Jew was a Jew according to the letter, and he was circumcised after the letter: but the true believing Gentile observing by God's grace in heart and in God's sight, that which was meant by that carnal sign, is a Jew according to the spirit, and justified by God. Of the spirit and letter St. Augustine made a famous work, very necessary for the understanding of this Epistle.

Trent, Session 5, Decree Concerning Original Sin:

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; … let him be anathema

In other words, if anyone asserts, that this sin of Adam, … is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy [such as by the letter, as opposed to the spirit, of the law of Moses] than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

And this is precisely what the Council of Trent meant “as it is written” when in Session VI, Chapter I (“On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man”) it dogmatically affirmed:

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

The inward working of God in mens heart, and enduing him with faith, hope, and charity, and with love, liking, will, and ability to keep his commandments by the grace and merits of Christ, are called the [i]spirit.

How much clearer can it be?

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that "circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith"; "Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham 'received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith': because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not ..."

I wonder, C_T, if you took note of these words of St. Thomas Aquinas cited in my last post:

But although the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless it [the Old Law] did not confer the Holy Ghost by Whom "charity . . . is spread abroad in our hearts" (Romans 5:5). (Summa Theologica, I of II, Q. 107. Art. 1)

There it is in black in white, the Old Law did NOT confer grace (the Holy Ghost); Romans 2: 29 “But he that is in secret, is a Jew: and the circumcision of the heart, in spirit, not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

The Annotation from The Original Rheims New Testament of 1582 explains further: “In spirit, not letter] The outward ceremonies, Sacraments, threats, and commandments of God in the Law, are called the letter” while “the inward working of God in mens heart, and enduing him with faith, hope, and charity, and with love, liking, will, and ability to keep his commandments by the grace and merits of Christ, are called the spirit”.

Trent, Sess 5: “If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam … is taken away … by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ … let him be anathema.”

Again, as Trent, Sess 6 Ch. 6 declares, “… not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses [the established outward precepts], were able to be liberated [from original sin], or to arise, therefrom”.

And, as Trent Sess 6, Canon I, declares, “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by … the law [the outward precepts], without the grace of God through Jesus Christ [“the inward working of God (the Spirit) in mens heart’]; let him be anathema”.

2. Decree for the Armenians, Council of Florence 1439
Pope Eugenius IV. Bull Exsultate Domine

[DS 1310] We have drawn up in the briefest form a statement of the truth concerning the seven sacraments, so that the Armenians, now and in future generations, may more easily be instructed therein.

There are seven sacraments under the new law… These differ essentially from the sacraments of the old law; for the latter do not confer grace, but only typify that grace which can be given by the passion of Christ alone. But these our sacraments both contain grace and confer it upon all who receive them worthily.

[DS 1316] The efficacy of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original sin and actual, and of all penalties incurred through this guilt. Therefore no satisfaction for past sin should be imposed on those who are baptized; but if they die before they commit any sin, they shall straightway attain the kingdom of heaven and the sight of God.

The point being: The sacraments of the new Law, as instrumental causes of grace, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them, while the sacraments of the old Law, since they are not instrumental causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace which can be given by the passion of Christ alone, neither contained nor bestowed grace (as causes of grace), but could “bestow” grace only in the sense and only inasmuch (ex opere operantis) as they were signs of faith in Christ's future Passion; e.g., ‘…the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith'; justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying.”

Their efficacy (only as a figurative means of grace), in other words, was not derived from the old Law Sacraments themselves, being only signs of grace (justice was of faith signified), their efficacy was derived from the merit of the redeemer to come, which merit was applied as a result of faith working in charity, which normally occurred in the sacrament (provided the proper dispositions were present), but not by the sacrament.

Florence, in its “briefest form a statement of the truth concerning the seven sacraments, so that the Armenians, now and in future generations, may more easily be instructed therein” was not concerning itself here with the fact that those under the Old law could be justified by grace and how this occurred (the causes of their justification), but only with defining the essential differences between the old and new Law Sacraments, with the main difference being one of efficacy and the superiority of the new over the old.

To conclude, the sacraments of the old Law were "signs" and "conditions" of the sanctified state and covenant willed by our Lord, such that "on the occasion of their reception, the faith and piety of the recipients obtained for them sanctifying grace [through the inward working of God (the Spirit) in men’s heart (faith and charity), which “working” of the Spirit wrought “the merit of the redeemer to come "] (Fr. Hardon).

Again, C_T refuses to be moderated by the Church as he arrogantly imposes his private and fallacious “interpretation” of dogma over the Church’s own universal understanding, all the while accusing the entire Catholic Church and all of her Doctors and theologians, as well as the pontifical Magisterium (e.g. Pope Leo XIII) of being in “error” in the Church’s alleged false doctrine of the “Judaizers” which has the Church allegedly teaching “that circumcision under the Old Covenant removed original sin”, which, removed from any and all context, is in dogmatic opposition to Florence and Trent (heretical).

By this, C_T really means to say (because he said it) that the Catholic Church erroneously teaches (in heretical opposition to defined dogma) that the grace of the merit of the redeemer to come was made available to the just of the Old Law by a faith (in our Lord) working in charity, and that he couldn’t care less about the Church’s teaching with respect to ex opera operanto and operantis and its clear infallible teaching on the sole remedy for the remission of origin sin – the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, of which Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared with the universal Magisterium, “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, and:

"It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace ... so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints ... not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" ... they also were numbered among the children of God ... So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom ... He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20).

C_T accuses Pope Leo XIII of being a “Judaizer”, while in truth, C_T denies a fundamental infallible doctrine of the Church, which holds that “the divine "voluntas salvitica" was at all times present, and not unfrequently fruitful", and that those who lived under that Dispensation were mercifully supplied with means more or less efficacious for the procuring of the "unica causa formalis justificationis". (The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Third Series, Volume VII, 1886)

As such, his “opinion” he imposes as “dogma” is “worse than worthless because …” (borrowing again from Mr. Daly):

I say worse than worthless because defending the truth with invalid arguments makes the truth vulnerable to the appearance of refutation when the invalid arguments are exposed…

So we find [C_T]:

(a) Radically distorting the meaning of a dogma.
(b) Accusing others of radically distorting the meaning of the very dogma he is twisting in knots.
(d) Performing intellectual acrobatics to twist meanings and logic while claiming that his crazy "interpretation" is manifestly the only correct one.
(e) Doing all the above because it doesn't suit him to believe what Trent [and Florence] actually defined.

Another grave departure from Catholic orthodoxy is found in [C_T’s] attitude to those papal decrees and declarations, encyclicals, etc., which fall short of the requirements for pertaining to the Extraordinary Magisterium. [C_T] sees no difficulty in arguing that as they are not guaranteed by direct infallibility, they may well contain error and that Catholics are free to reject their contents, indeed sometimes bound to...

As a matter of fact, as Pope Pius XII explains in Humani Generis, and as any serious student of Catholic doctrine knows, Catholics are bound in conscience to submit both exteriorly and interiorly to these non-infallible documents also, and the words of Our Lord "He that heareth you, heareth me" apply to them [i.e., “what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine … For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority”]. [C_T] rejects that truth by a combination of ignorance and necessity, for he cannot admit a fact that would at a stroke destroy his false doctrine concerning [Justification and Baptism in voto].

Precisely.

From Saint Thomas Aquinas:

As stated above (Article 6), Christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Romans 6:23: "The grace of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell. (Summa Theologica III, q.52, a.7)

The present Catechism affirms St. Thomas' teaching (who is also directly quoted by the Catechism seven times):

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

So, unless one is going to claim that Saint Thomas and the CCC are teaching the existence of "null sets," then it is clear that there are at least some children who are in Limbo, having ended this life in "original sin alone." We are, of course, "allowed to hope" (CCC, #1261) that there are some exceptions. Note, however, the following:

The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life. (Lumen Gentium, 12)

and the Magisterial witness to this faith:

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

Jehanne wrote:From Saint Thomas Aquinas:

As stated above (Article 6), Christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Romans 6:23: "The grace of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell. (Summa Theologica III, q.52, a.7)

The question before us is not whether children who die in original sin can be offered the grace of salvation by the faith of the parents or “from the whole company of the saints and the faithful” (acting on behalf of the Church), for once a soul dies, his condition cannot change.

No, the question before us is whether God may choose to effect this change to new life while the infant is alive (in the womb or otherwise). And, while in general (as the common opinion) St. Thomas does not appear to believe that saving grace is open to unbaptized infants, neither does he absolutely rule out the possibility, and does in fact state that infants in the mother’s womb can “be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb”:

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

And in question 68, article 9, St. Thomas explains this way of salvation in greater detail:

The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.

Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), "in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) "when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another's sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to" Ezekiel 18:4: "'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he contracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence." But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another.

So the theological principle is clearly established that says “children … before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, [may] receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.”

This is why theologians such as St. Bernard of Clairveaux (d. 1153) and Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaitani Cajetan (d. 1534) and others used these same theological principles of the Angelic Doctor to adopt a more generous application to the possible sanctification and salvation of non-baptized infants. After all, if God chooses, as we read in Luke 1:15, "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."

The more common opinion (in the West) against the salvation of non-sacramentally Baptized infants is NOT a dogma, and neither does it enjoy a universal common consensus that would require that we “Hold fast" to the opinion as if it is "believed everywhere, always and by all." (St. Vincent Lerins) The very fact that the Magisterium allows for the hope of salvation for non-water baptized infants means that St. Thomas did not have the last word on this subject (especially in light of his other teachings); a subject which has never been dogmatically or definitively settled.

We also know that when Pope Pius XII taught that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open”, he prefaced his teaching by saying “In the present economy there is no other way [other than Baptism] to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason”, which simply means that while in the present economy the Church knows [with the certitude of faith] of no way other than water Baptism that can assure them of salvation, “the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children … allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

VCII affirmed this same “hope”, when it declared:

For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery. (Gaudium et spes 22).

St. Thomas Aquinas also taught:

When the Apostle says that the grace of God "hath abounded unto many," the word "many" [The Vulgate reads 'plures,' i.e. 'many more'] is to be taken, not comparatively, as if more were saved by Christ's grace than lost by Adam's sin: but absolutely, as if he said that the grace of the one Christ abounded unto many, just as Adam's sin was contracted by many. But as Adam's sin was contracted by those only who descended seminally from him according to the flesh, so Christ's grace reached those only who became His members by spiritual regeneration: (Summa Theologica III, q.52, a.7)

And, while St. Thomas finishes the sentence by saying that this regeneration “does not apply to children dying in original sin”, neither does he positively rule out the possibility that God may choose to save children “not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.”

I’ll address the rest of your post, Jehanne, when I find the time.

Jehanne wrote:
The present Catechism affirms St. Thomas' teaching (who is also directly quoted by the Catechism seven times):

The present Catechism affirms the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, especially with respect to the necessity of Baptism, while also affirming the teaching of such esteemed theologians as St. Bernard of Clairveaux and Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaitani Cajetan when it comes to the possibility of salvation for non-sacramentally Baptized infants (without telling us how this might happen, except by the grace of God).

And the Catechism, while teaching with St. Thomas that “the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love”, departs from St. Thomas when it allows for the “hope” of salvation for these same children who, before death, may be “cleansed from original sin”, as St. Thomas also teaches (in principle), “not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.”

Jehanne wrote:So, unless one is going to claim that Saint Thomas and the CCC are teaching the existence of "null sets," then it is clear that there are at least some children who are in Limbo, having ended this life in "original sin alone." We are, of course, "allowed to hope" (CCC, #1261) that there are some exceptions.

Jehanne, IF God chooses to save all non-sacramentally Baptized infants, then Limbo is not a “null set”, it simply does NOT exist.

And IF God chooses to save some of these same infants by exception, “then”, as you correctly affirm, one may say “it is clear that there are at least some children who are in Limbo, having ended this life in ‘original sin alone’", just as one may hold the more rigorous Augustinian position that assigns the punishment of hellfire, however “slight” it may be.

So your assertion of a “null set” represents a “null” hypothesis.

And nowhere has the Church ever bound Catholics to believe that Limbo exists, only that it would be rash and even heterodox to assert that there is some “middle place” between heaven and hell (which pertains more to “place” and not to effect when one speaks of a “natural happiness” devoid of any sense suffering – and, apparently, to a place in Hell set apart from the dominion of the devil). All of this is theological speculation, and poses its own set of difficulties, as Cardinal Ratzinger explained when he said, in his private capacity as theologian, he prefers to believe that Limbo does not exist.

And I understand his point of view when we consider that for all intents and purposes, Limbo has evolved into a “middle place” between eternal damnation and eternal bliss where the souls of little children go to enjoy an eternal state of natural happiness (complete with visits from the Saints and Our Blessed Mother), and who may not even be aware that they are separated from God. And if they are aware, it does not cause them any suffering.

How can the loss of the beatific vision engender in anyone a minute, or no, sense of suffering, unless one is shielded from the eternal reality of such a profound loss (which, as he Saints attest, is worse than the fires of hell)?

Does that sound like “hell” in any way, sense or form, to you? It didn't to St. Augustine and the ancient Fathers (though the Eastern Fathers did not take such a harsh view, and simply left it open to God, with some of them even opining for an eventual universal salvation).

Do we rationalize a state of natural “eternal happiness” by placing Limbo at/in the outer most reaches of Hell, as if its location (in the happy country club part of Hell) somehow suggests eternal damnation, or at least the suffering of an eternal loss - the penalty for original sin?

St. Augustine, as much as he wrestled with this, could not envisage any part of Hell consisting of a state of natural happiness devoid of any sense suffering.

If subsequent theologians moved past St. Augustine by way of further theological development, this does not mean such development ended with St. Aquinas. We do have a Magisterium, and she is the arbiter of any such developments in doctrine.

I'll address your appeal to Auctorem Fidei, one again, time permitting.

MRyan wrote:And nowhere has the Church ever bound Catholics to believe that Limbo exists, only that it would be rash and even heterodox to assert that there is some “middle place” between heaven and hell (which pertains more to “place” and not to effect when one speaks of a “natural happiness” devoid of any sense suffering – and, apparently, to a place in Hell set apart from the dominion of the devil). All of this is theological speculation, and poses its own set of difficulties, as Cardinal Ratzinger explained when he said, in his private capacity as theologian, he prefers to believe that Limbo does not exist.

I'll address your appeal to Auctorem Fidei, one again, time permitting.

Let me do it for you. But first, the promise which the Holy Spirit has made to the Catholic Church alone:

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

Now, Auctorem Fidei:

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

Note the tense of the Pope's verb "departing." If I say, "I am riding my bike," what does that mean? Do not I mean that I am riding a bicycle? Unless I am lying, I could only mean what I say, that is, I am riding a bike. If I "text" that message to you, you can be assured that I am riding a bike, especially, if you receive my message within a minute or two of me sending it. At least you can be assured that I was riding a bike, unless, of course, I am lying.

The same is true of what Pope Pius VI declared -- not all children who end this life without sacramental Baptism in Water will go to Heaven. Some will (and have) go to Heaven, such as those who were martyred for Christ; others will be excluded from Heaven.

MRyan wrote:The present Catechism affirms the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, especially with respect to the necessity of Baptism, while also affirming the teaching of such esteemed theologians as St. Bernard of Clairveaux and Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaitani Cajetan when it comes to the possibility of salvation for non-sacramentally Baptized infants (without telling us how this might happen, except by the grace of God).

Cajetan's speculations were purged from his works:

http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34603

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:The present Catechism affirms the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, especially with respect to the necessity of Baptism, while also affirming the teaching of such esteemed theologians as St. Bernard of Clairveaux and Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaitani Cajetan when it comes to the possibility of salvation for non-sacramentally Baptized infants (without telling us how this might happen, except by the grace of God).

Cajetan's speculations were purged from his works:

http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34603

Jehanne,

Fine, but are you suggesting that the theory of vicarious baptism of desire taught by Cajetan and other theologians was “implicitly condemned” or “implicitly censured” by St. Pius V when he ordered it removed from his commentary on the Summa of St. Thomas?

That seems to be a popular opinion, but do you realize that the “work” of Cajetan we are talking about is his official commentary that accompanied the publication of the Summa Theologica, and that Pope Pius V had several other passages of Cajetan’s removed as well, including one on the Eucharist where the Cardinal clearly departed from the doctrine of Aquinas by stating “it must be considered as beyond question” that “for the consecration of the Precious Blood nothing more is required than these four words: ‘This is my blood’"?

Whatever one’s opinion concerning the motivation of Pope Pius V to have removed certain passages of Cajetan from his official commentaries on the Summa, everyone can agree that what was removed represented a departure from the “common opinion” of the Angelic Doctor.

However, a so-called “implicit censure” is NOT an official censure, it is not an official “suspicion of heresy”, neither it is an official condemnation for being schismatical or heretical or rash or offensive or insensitive to pious ears, though if it was insensitive to the ears of Pope Pius V, it may have been because the Church was not ready to place her stamp of approval on this opinion, and he wanted to avoid the appearance of controversy in the official commentaries on the Summa.

And just as Pope Pius V had every right to expunge from official commentaries that which he believed were deviations from the more common opinion of the Angelic Doctor, so too did Pope Leo XIII have the same right to restore several of these same passages of Cajetan “which St. Pius V desired to have expunged from the texts” because these “suppressed parts, now for the most part inoffensive, were largely in the nature of of personal views and had no direct bearing on Thomistic doctrine as a system."

In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school. His commentaries on the "Summa Theologica", the first in that extensive field, begun in 1507 and finished in 1522, are his greatest work and were speedily recognized as a classic in Scholastic literature. The work is primarily a defence of St. Thomas against the attacks of Scotus. In the third part it reviews the aberrations of the Reformers, especially Luther. The important relation between Cajetan and the Angelic Doctor was emphasized by Leo XIII, when by his Pontifical Letters of 15 October, 1879, he ordered the former's commentaries and those of Ferrariensis to be incorporated with the text of the "Summa" in the official Leonine edition of the complete works of St. Thomas, the first volume of which appeared at Rome in 1882. This edition has restored a number of passages which St. Pius V desired to have expunged from the texts, the publication of which he ordered in 1570. The suppressed parts, now for the most part inoffensive, were largely in the nature of personal views and had no direct bearing on Thomistic doctrine as a system. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm)

Nothing like a bit of context, don’t you think?

And, as I already demonstrated, the opinions of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, Cardinal Cajetan and other theologians such as Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, and Klee, were not in opposition to the theological system of Aquinas, for his system included the theological principle that holds: “children … before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, [may] receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.”

Where they differed with the Angelic Doctor is in the specific application of the system/principle (certain conclusions) to a particular set of ordinary circumstances (the intervention of God to save unbaptized infants).

The Church "in the present economy" allows for Cajetan's never-condemned doctrine as a plausible mechanism in support of the "hope" we are allowed for the salvation of non-sacramentally baptized infants.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And nowhere has the Church ever bound Catholics to believe that Limbo exists, only that it would be rash and even heterodox to assert that there is some “middle place” between heaven and hell (which pertains more to “place” and not to effect when one speaks of a “natural happiness” devoid of any sense suffering – and, apparently, to a place in Hell set apart from the dominion of the devil). All of this is theological speculation, and poses its own set of difficulties, as Cardinal Ratzinger explained when he said, in his private capacity as theologian, he prefers to believe that Limbo does not exist.

I'll address your appeal to Auctorem Fidei, one again, time permitting.

Let me do it for you. But first, the promise which the Holy Spirit has made to the Catholic Church alone:

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

That, of course, is not even "debatable", but its nice to see someone else actually citing the infallible Pastor Aeternus! But, where are you going with this?

Jehanne wrote:
Now, Auctorem Fidei:

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

Note the tense of the Pope's verb "departing." If I say, "I am riding my bike," what does that mean? Do not I mean that I am riding a bicycle? Unless I am lying, I could only mean what I say, that is, I am riding a bike. If I "text" that message to you, you can be assured that I am riding a bike, especially, if you receive my message within a minute or two of me sending it. At least you can be assured that I was riding a bike, unless, of course, I am lying.

The tense of the verb "departing" does nothing to negate the doctrine which holds that God may provide a means of sanctification before the infant "departs" this life.

For the purpose of condemning the "Pelagian fable", "departing" simply assumes the infant is departing in original sin because the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism "in the present economy" that can assure him of salvation, and was not about to assume that another means unknown to the Church may be possible.

There is no "lying" involved ... its a simple fact, while yours is a logical fallacy.

This is where your reference to Pastor Aeternus is troubling, for you seem to be suggesting that any development in the doctrine of "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants places the stain of "error" on the See of Peter, with Auctorem Fidei being in dogmatic opposition to any such "hope".

The notion is without any merit, and is in fact false (if that is what you are suggesting). Please tell me how Pastor Aeternus applies to Auctorem Fidei, which means that one would have to know precisely what is being dogmatically affirmed, and what isn't.

Jehanne wrote:
The same is true of what Pope Pius VI declared -- not all children who end this life without sacramental Baptism in Water will go to Heaven. Some will (and have) go to Heaven, such as those who were martyred for Christ; others will be excluded from Heaven.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

MRyan wrote:For the purpose of condemning the "Pelagian fable", "departing" simply assumes the infant is departing in original sin because the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism "in the present economy" that can assure him of salvation, and was not about to assume that another means unknown to the Church may be possible.

So, you're saying that there is no one excluded from Heaven due to the "sole guilt of original sin," and hence, no one who is "punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire"? Or, at least "we are allowed to hope" that such is the case? What, if anything, was Pope Pius V trying to teach in that paragraph of Auctorem Fidei, which, by the way, is listed in Denzinger's? Should it still be included in Denzinger's? Do you think that #1261 in the Catechism should be listed in Denzinger's? By the way, did any of the theologians (with the exception of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, of course) whom you listed above dispute the text from Saint Thomas which I quoted earlier:

As stated above (Article 6), Christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Romans 6:23: "The grace of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell. (Summa Theologica III, q.52, a.7)

What did Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaitani Cajetan, in his commentary on Thomas' Summa, have to say about the above text? Or, was he of the opinion that there were no children in Hell due to "original sin alone"? How about the other theologians whom you cited?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:For the purpose of condemning the "Pelagian fable", "departing" simply assumes the infant is departing in original sin because the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism "in the present economy" that can assure him of salvation, and was not about to assume that another means unknown to the Church may be possible.

So, you're saying that there is no one excluded from Heaven due to the "sole guilt of original sin," and hence, no one who is "punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire"?

I never said any such thing, and neither has the Church.

Jehanne wrote:Or, at least "we are allowed to hope" that such is the case?

So you have read the CCC, after all.

I’m saying that it is a de fide dogma that ALL who die in the state of original sin are excluded from the beatific vision; but, as the Church also teaches, this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that God may regenerate souls in an extra-sacramental manner, the theological principle for which being firmly established by St. Aquinas (even if by “exception”), even though this possibility “in the present economy” might not even have been entertained by previous council fathers and popes in their Bulls and other official teachings (for the simple reason the Church was not yet ready to give an official sanction for “hope”, though neither did she close this door).

Again, St. Thomas Aquinas taught: “children … before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, [may] receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.”

That St. Thomas did not believe that God would intervene to save non-Baptized children in the ordinary course of events (only by exception) does NOT exclude valid theological principles (and the salvific will of God) from being valid for non-Baptized infants in general. It’s called the development of doctrine, just as Limbo went though a medieval development in response to the harshness of Augustine’s doctrine.

Jehanne wrote:What, if anything, was Pope Pius V trying to teach in that paragraph of Auctorem Fidei, which, by the way, is listed in Denzinger's? Should it still be included in Denzinger's?

Auctorem Fidei is an official bull of the Church issued by Pius VI in 1794, the purpose of which was to condemn the Gallican and Jansenist acts and tendencies of the synod of Pistoia, so why in the world wouldn’t it be listed in Denzinger (which is "a handbook containing a collection of the chief decrees and definitions of councils, list of condemned propositions, etc."?)

It’s teaching here is actually quite clear: It does not concern itself on a dogmatic level with the existence of Limbo, it condemns, rather, the Pelagian logical fallacy that says just because there are some who would remove the punishment of fire in that place generally known as the Limbo of the Children, that this necessarily introduces a “middle place” free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation.

Btw, Jehanne, Pope Pius VI condemned this proposition as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools" and not "heretical". If he meant to declare it "heretical", he would have, as he did with several other condemned propositions, such as:

1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"—heretical.

That the subject proposition also says that the place “the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children” is where “the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned” does not necessarily mean (for the issue has never been definitively settled) that all children who are deprived of the sacrament necessarily depart with the guilt of original sin, though in 1794 this was still the more common opinion, but it was not the only opinion of the approved theologians.

Jehanne wrote:Do you think that #1261 in the Catechism should be listed in Denzinger's?

Only when the Catechism of the Council of Trent’s teaching on the good hope of salvation for those faith-filled ardent souls who are deprived of the sacrament through no fault of their own is included in Denzinger. That the universal Roman Catechisms of the Catholic Church are not included in Denzinger does not take away from their legitimacy as authentic teachings of the Church.

And just as this teaching from the Catechism of Trent finds its firm doctrinal basis from tradition and from the Council of Trent, so too does the current #1261 find its firm doctrinal basis from traditional theological principles and from the Second Vatican Council.

The documents of VCII are official acts of the Pope and the Bishops united with him (acts of the supreme teaching office), and are contained within the latest editions of Denzinger. Here is one such magisterial passage:

“For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et spes 22)

Jehanne wrote:

By the way, did any of the theologians (with the exception of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, of course) whom you listed above dispute the text from Saint Thomas which I quoted earlier:

Perhaps you missed where I said:

And, as I already demonstrated, the opinions of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, Cardinal Cajetan and other theologians such as Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, and Klee, were not in opposition to the theological system of Aquinas, for his system included the theological principle that holds: “children … before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, [may] receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.”

Fr. Ludwig Ott fills in some of the details:

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and 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. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 114)

Continuing:

Jehanne wrote:

As stated above (Article 6), Christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith of their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children from thence. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Romans 6:23: "The grace of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell. (Summa Theologica III, q.52, a.7)

What did Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaitani Cajetan, in his commentary on Thomas' Summa, have to say about the above text? Or, was he of the opinion that there were no children in Hell due to "original sin alone"? How about the other theologians whom you cited?

Fr. Ott provided a sufficient answer, but it is worth repeating that all of the named theologians taught that “The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner", while differing only in the means by which this could be accomplished. Cajetan taught it could be accomplished through the "prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan)” (Ott).

Thanks Mike for (as always) a wonderful discussion. For those who are interested, I have updated my essay on this topic:

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

Well, Jehanne, one needs only peruse the opening section of your blog entry to know that this “wonderful discussion” accomplished absolutely nothing with respect to your understanding of the teachings of the Church.

You begin with the headline “Infants who die without Sacramental Baptism in Water do not go to Heaven”, which is of course a valid opinion in that it is not heretical; but that’s all it is, an opinion that is at odds with the Magisterium of the Church in her doctrine of “hope”, making you the arbiter of doctrine and tradition, not the Church.

And it only gets worse when you state,

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

Your gross and childish characterization of the ITC (and the Church), which never once stated “Well, we don't believe in that...") is pathetic.

So, you say, “it is high-time for someone to state, explicitly, what the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church teaches on the fate of infants who die without Baptism”, thereby suggesting that “the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church” teaches that “Infants who die without Sacramental Baptism in Water do not go to Heaven”, when it does no such thing, and you then confirm this without, apparently, realizing it, when you state “They do not go to Heaven … This is at least theologically certain.

So which is it, Jehanne, is your assertion that “They do not go to Heaven” a teaching of “the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church”, or does it represent the once common opinion of theologians that you suddenly have the competency to declare “theologically certain”, when never was it ever considered such.

According to the guide for theological notes titled On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951 … translation and adaptation by John Daly), a doctrine which is held to be “certain, common and theologically certain” is:

A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.

And, as we already know, “They do not go to Heaven” is not a truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians (especially those of the second millennium), for even Scripture and St. Thomas Aquinas confirm that some such souls do go to heaven when our Lord chooses to effect their sanctification in the womb. So already you have to qualify your “theologically certain” bravado by recognizing that there are exceptions, and where there are exceptions there are valid theological principles providing the foundation for those exceptions that may also apply to other contingencies. And, as we know, one of these theological priciples was artilcated by St. Thomas Aquains as:

“children … before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, [may] receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.”

With your “theological certain” claim, you are also acknowledging that your opinion that “Infants who die without Sacramental Baptism in Water do not go to Heaven” has never been definitively settled by the Church, and thus your entire thesis rests on your “theologically certain” claim since not a single one of your “dogmatic” proofs can prove one way or the other that “They do not go to Heaven”.

So tell us, Jehanne, aren’t you the one who is being “intellectually dishonest” when you dare to reject from your arbitrary “universal truth” poll of theologians the theological opinions of such renowned theologians as St. Bernard of Clairveaux, Cardinal Cajetan, as well as Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee and Ott and all of the other renowned theologians and manualists of the Western Church from the second millennium who have always found problematic the automatic exclusion of unbaptized infants from Heaven?

In fact, who are you to completely ignore the great doctors and theologians of the East as if their opinions do not count towards your unscientific and arbitrary “poll”?

So where does that leave you? It leaves you with making the legitimate claim that “Infants who die without Sacramental Baptism in Water do not go to Heaven” is at least “very common/commoner”, that is, “The most solidly founded or best attested theological opinion on a disputed subject”, and with the understanding that:

Very common or commoner opinions can be mistaken and there is no obligation to follow them though prudence inclines us to favour them as a general policy. It should be noted that an opinion which is "very common" is less well established than one which is "common" which implies moral unanimity of theological schools.

You can also argue that your opinion is at least “probable”, meaning “A theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it”, though “Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.”

And, that the Church provides the basis for another "opinion" is a very “good reason”.

Who are you again? Oh, that’s right, you have a bog.

If you represent the “intellectually honest” face of “traditional Catholics”, traditional Catholicism is in sad shape.

Mike,

What a cheap (parting) shot. I refer interested readers to the 2007 report of the International Theological Commission "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised":

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

Note the following:

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.

Augustine's thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness.[51] One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine's stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of "fire"). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.

The Bull “Auctorem fidei” of Pope Pius VI is not a dogmatic definition of the existence of Limbo: the papal Bull confines itself to rejecting the Jansenist charge that the “Limbo” taught by scholastic theologians is identical with the “eternal life” promised to unbaptised infants by the ancient Pelagians. Pius VI did not condemn the Jansenists because they denied Limbo, but because they held that the defenders of Limbo were guilty of the heresy of Pelagius. By maintaining the freedom of the Catholic Schools to propose different solutions to the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants, the Holy See defended the common teaching as an acceptable and legitimate option, without endorsing it.

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: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God; the transmission and the consequences of original sin; the necessity of grace in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and attain the vision of God; the uniqueness and universality of the saving mediation of Christ Jesus; and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. These other ways are not achieved by modifying the principles of the faith, or by elaborating hypothetical theories; rather, they seek an integration and coherent reconciliation of the principles of the faith under the guidance of the ecclesial magisterium, by giving more weight to God's universal salvific will and to solidarity in Christ (cf. GS 22) in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision. In keeping with a methodological principle that what is less known must be investigated by way of what is better known, it appears that the point of departure for considering the destiny of these children should be the salvific will of God, the mediation of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a consideration of the condition of children who receive Baptism and are saved through the action of the Church in the name of Christ. The destiny of unbaptised infants remains, however, a limit-case as regards theological inquiry: theologians should keep in mind the apophatic perspective of the Greek Fathers.

I am not the only Catholic who is defending Limbo. Many others are as well:

http://www.sspx.org/catholic_faqs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html
http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-141.html
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/limbo.asp

Again, none of the Doctors, Saints, theologians whom you mentioned taught that all unbaptized infants who die without that Sacrament go to Heaven. Saint Thomas was quite explicit about that:

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

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

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

So, there's no question in the Angelic Doctor's mind that he was not dealing with a "null set" here; no one took him to task on this, either, at least for 500 hundred years. So, yes, I think that Thomas' teaching was/is "certain." It's the ITC's teaching that is the "new kid on the block" here.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

What a cheap (parting) shot.

No, you can dish out cheap shots at the conciliar Popes, the ITC, the Roman Catechism and the theologians (especially those of the second millennium), many of whom believed and still teach that God may choose to save unbaptized infants, by characterizing their doctrine as the “intellectually dishonest” and theologically bankrupt musings spouted by “so-called traditional Catholics”, but you can’t take valid criticisms of your sloppy “theology”, your mendacious exaggerations, logical fallacies and mockery of the Church that permeate your blog entry.

You are a Jekyll and Hyde when it comes to the decorum and respect you have come to exhibit on this forum, and your rad-trad trash-talking disrespect we see on your blog. And that is only one reason why I do not like to read your amateurish musings, and generally avoid your blog like the plague.

Neither can you even begin to address my counter-arguments, which you have astutely ignored, or simply mangled with your fallacious characterizations and "interpretations".

Yours blog entry is steeped in haughty arrogance, and it is clear that you are on very shaky ground and that you do not have a good grasp of the theology, ecclesiology and magisterial (fallible and infallible) teachings involved in these disputes.

Did you attempt an honest rebuttal to a single one of my arguments challenging the numerous errors and sloppy thinking in your blog entry?

Of course not, you can only throw more irrelevant stuff on the wall as if it even begins to answer what I posted, and appeal to the articles of others as if they can make your arguments seem credible. Don’t flatter yourself.

For example, what was the purpose of citing an entire section of the ITC report when it only confirmed that Limbo “remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis”?

When and where did the “intellectually dishonest … bunch of intellectuals” of the ITC, Pope Benedict XVI and the Roman Catechism ever say otherwise? You are all over the place, and prove nothing except the veracity of everything I’ve said.

And good for you that you are “not the only Catholic who is defending Limbo”, as if the Church or any one of her theologians has declared Limbo “obsolete”. That one may choose not to believe in Limbo does not detract from the valid traditions and arguments for its existence, and neither does it absolve anyone one from unduly delaying infant baptism.

Jehanne wrote:

Again, none of the Doctors, Saints, theologians whom you mentioned taught that all unbaptized infants who die without that Sacrament go to Heaven. Saint Thomas was quite explicit about that:

Notice, once again, how you disingenuously frame the issue; and of course, you completely ignore the Doctors and theologians of the East.

Every single Doctor, Saint and theologian I mentioned taught that God may offer the grace of regeneration/sanctification to infants in an extra-sacramental manner. Your selective citations of the Angelic Doctor completely ignore the valid theological principles he taught justifying God’s sanctification of infants in the womb.

Theologians are free to disagree about God’s prerogatives in this matter, but it is clear that many theologians, especially those of the second millennium (to include the manualists), taught the same doctrine of “hope” that is taught by the Church today.

So what is it you are trying to prove, Jehanne, besides tying to make the Church look “intellectually dishonest” and quite stupid?

Just who do you think is being "intellectually dishonest", you, or the Church?

Mike,

This is going to be my last post for this thread, so if you want the "last word," it's yours. After this, I am going to take a break from the forum for a few months.

First off, the Roman Catechism nowhere states that infants can attain the Beatific Vision without sacramental Baptism. Indeed, one can read the Roman Catechism "either way":

"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."

As I note on my blog, the adjective "solemn" is dropped with respect to "Baptism." So, what do the authors of the Roman Catechism mean just by "Baptism"? They could, of course, have said "sacramental Baptism," "Baptism in Water," "sacrament of Baptism," etc. to qualify their statement. Clearly, "solemn Baptism" means "sacramental Baptism," but in dropping that adjective in the very next sentence, the Roman Catechism is "hinting" at other avenues of salvation for infants, at least in my opinion. However, the faith of the Roman Catechism is clearly that of the Church, which Saint Pope Pius X declared in his catechism:

Pope Pius X Catechism

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

So, clearly, the faith of the Church is that it is at least possible for parents to deprive their infant child of eternal life just as it is possible for parents to deprive their infant child of his/her very own existence, through the use of artificial contraception, and since the Triune God is not intervening (at least regularly) during the latter, it is reasonable, via the constant faith of the Church and her teaching, to profess that He does not intervene in the former instance either:

1891 Baltimore Catechism

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

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

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

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

The current Catechism reinforces the above, somewhat "implicitly":

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

So, parents (and, the Church, also) have the capacity to deny an infant child the "priceless gift" of eternal life:

“The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X's catechism always retains its value, … There can be persons or groups that feel more comfortable with St. Pius X's catechism. ... that Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content. Also because of this, St. Pius X's catechism might have friends in the future.”

http://www.zenit.org/article-7161?l=english

But, let's look at Auctorem Fidei again:

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

So, is the Sovereign Pontiff saying that it is false to "reject as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions" but that is orthodox to "reject that place of the lower regions," as long as one is not saying that it is "a Pelagian fable"??? I do not think so. To reject Limbo is just plain false, whether one attaches "a Pelagian fable" label to it or not. And, none of the theologians whom you mentioned (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Jean Gerson, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan) rejected Limbo nor did any of them ever teach that all infant children who die without sacramental Baptism in Water would be saved. Nor does the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach that all infants who die without sacramental Baptism will be saved. Paragraph #1261 says that we "are allowed to hope," and as Father Brian Harrison has stated, such does not mean the we "are obliged to hope." I believe that there are excellent reasons not to hope, at least in some circumstances, for a parent who has refused the graces offered via the Sacraments, either for themselves and/or for their child, does not deserve any additional, "extraordinary graces."

Talk to you again in a few months. Until then...

Jehanne,

It would be my hope that in the next few months you would take the time to clean up your blog and remove/edit the gratuitous ad hominem’s and the disrespectful and arrogant language you exhibit towards the teaching Church, certain theologians, the ITC and “so-called traditionalists”.

Without objecting to our legitimate differences of opinion (where the Church allows), I also know that if I encourage you to amend your numerous errors, exaggerations and logical fallacies, there would be little hope that you would do so, but, as a “so-called Catholic blog”, it is an embarrassment to any self-respecting “traditional” Catholic.

Take it for what it’s worth, and if you think it’s worth nothing, carry on.

I actually thought that there was some progress being made here, even if we will never come to an agreement; but when I began to read your “updated” blog entry (upon your recommendation), I was severely disappointed, to say the least; hence, my visceral and I believe justified reaction to your haughty accusations, disrespect, and flawed arguments.

On the doctrinal front, to demonstrate how confused you appear to remain, let’s take look at some of your latest comments:

…none of the theologians whom you mentioned (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Jean Gerson, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan) rejected Limbo nor did any of them ever teach that all infant children who die without sacramental Baptism in Water would be saved. Nor does the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach that all infants who die without sacramental Baptism will be saved. Paragraph #1261 says that we "are allowed to hope," and as Father Brian Harrison has stated, such does not mean the we "are obliged to hope."

Really? And what makes you think that I, or the Church, disagree with any of that? You do like doing battle with your straw-men, do you not?

I believe that there are excellent reasons not to hope, at least in some circumstances, for a parent who has refused the graces offered via the Sacraments, either for themselves and/or for their child, does not deserve any additional, "extraordinary graces."

That’s fine, but what the infant “deserves” by way of “extraordinary graces” is not yours to determine. The will of the parents had nothing to do with the “extraordinary graces” showered upon the Holy Innocents, it was a gratuitous act and gift of God when He decided to ignore the precept of the Angelic Doctor that says, whereas children in the womb are not subject to the acts of men - but only to the acts of God (and may be thus sanctified), children are subject to the acts of men, and not to God (God acts through men), and because infants cannot reason and choose the good, they cannot be sanctified except by sacramental Baptism.

Ah, you will say, the Holy Innocents represent another “exception” to the “rule”. Which goes to prove that God does not always follow our “rules”. In fact, God may very well apply the same precept Aquinas applies to infants in the womb to other children who die before they can receive the sacrament:

“Children … can … be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified [by their suffering … and] in the womb." (STL, III q. 68 art. 11 ad 1)

Hope ... is NOT the assurance of things hoped for (salvation), but only the justifiable hope we may have in the mercy of God that the efficacy of the blood He shed for all men may find its way to sanctify the souls of these precious children.

My, what a terrible doctrine!

Jehanne wrote:But, let's look at Auctorem Fidei again:

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

So, is the Sovereign Pontiff saying that it is false to "reject as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions" but that is orthodox to "reject that place of the lower regions," as long as one is not saying that it is "a Pelagian fable"??? I do not think so. To reject Limbo is just plain false, whether one attaches "a Pelagian fable" label to it or not.

But, once again, what is Pope Pius VI actually condemning “as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools" (and not as “heretical”)?

This is what happens when critical distinctions and context are ignored. Pope Pius VI is most likely NOT condemning any doctrine that rejects “Limbo”, he appears to be actually condemning:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) … as if by the very fact that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation.

And that “place and state … about which the Pelagians idly talk” is NOT the “Limbo of the Children” as it is commonly taught by theologians as a place set aside for the punishment of the condemned (in original sin), exclusive of fire.

No, the Pelagians believe that children who die without the grace of Baptism, while not deserving of eternal supernatural glory, do not deserve any “punishment of the condemned” whatsoever. In their heretical view, children are created in a state of inherent natural goodness and justice, and original sin is not transmitted to infants by way of natural descent (and thus, infants do not require Baptism for the removal of original sin), and that Baptism confers on us only a higher stage of salvation.

Of course, when “Limbo” is presented (as it commonly is) as a natural “state of salvation” (a “lesser stage of salvation”?) where children enjoy an eternity of perfect natural happiness devoid of any sense suffering whatsoever (including the sense of loss), where children “know and love Christ as the cause of their resurrection” (in the resurrection of their bodies), we can well understand why Augustine would most likely have rejected this "middle" or "lesser" "state of salvation" as a “Pelagian fable”.

And can anyone take serious exception to the notion that aborted infants, for example, enjoy such an eternal state of natural happiness where they will have the gifts of immortality and a happy social life with the rest of the human race, in particular with their parents (as Cardinal Journet suggests)?

This is the place of “eternal punishment” – in “Hell”?

We can see the trouble that arises when critical distinctions are ignored. There is a reason Pope Pius VI did not condemn “the doctrine” (that can sound all-to-similar to the “Pelagian fable”, but is not the same) as heretical, for he was not necessarily condemning any doctrine that questioned the existence of Limbo (and certainly not as "heretical"), but only the doctrine that turns the common doctrine of Limbo into a “Pelagian fable”, as if they are the same doctrine.

Pontifications (Nihil refert. Quocumque tendimus, erramus.)

http://pontifications.wordpress.com/limbo/

Limbo
by Alvin Kimel

III

"Over at the First Things blog, Dr Robert T. Miller has expressed his reservations about any move by the Magisterium to 'abolish the doctrine of limbo and declare that the souls of unbaptized infants are saved.' [MR note: This essay was written in 2006 when the fear that Rome might officially “abolish the doctrine of Limbo” was making the rounds. The fear proved to be groundless].

“'The doctrine that all unbaptized infants are saved and enjoy the beatific vision lacks foundation not only in Scripture but also in the Catholic tradition.' I think Miller may be right about this. It is one thing to claim that we may reasonably and confidently hope in the salvation of unbaptized infants. It’s another thing to claim that we know by divine revelation that God will regenerate all unbaptized infants and bring them into his holy presence. Voices within the Tradition, both East and West, have differed on this question. St Gregory of Nyssa appears to have taken an optimistic view: infants who die prematurely are excluded from the life of the blessed because they are psychically incapable of this life; but this exclusion is temporary. As they contemplate divine truth their moral faculties will develop and grow, and eventually “they will draw at will from that abundant supply of the truly existent [God] which is offered.” Sts Augustine, Fulgentius, Anselm, and Robert Bellarmine, as well as the distinguished 17th century patristics scholar Dionysius Petavius, took a negative view: unbaptized infants suffer the torments of the damned [poena sensus] but only in the mildest form. And in the limbonic middle, as a merciful mitigation of Augustinian harshness, stand St Thomas Aquinas and most of the scholastic tradition: unbaptized infants are excluded from heaven (poena damni) but enjoy a natural beatitude and contentment. St Gregory of Nazianzus is often cited by Catholic scholars as anticipating the scholastic doctrine of the limbus infantium; but this seems an improbable interpretation. The scholastic theory of limbo requires an understanding of nature and grace that has never been part of Eastern theology; moreover, Gregory shared in the then common Origenist optimism of a universal reconciliation with God (apocatastasis). It is therefore likely that he anticipated, with his friend Gregory Nyssen, the post-mortem growth of unbaptized infants into supernatural joy. Within the Western tradition, the exclusion of unbaptized children from the beatific vision has been, until the 20th century, an overwhelmingly held opinion. 'Historically,' states Austrian theologian Johannes Schwarz, 'the doctrinal alternative to limbo never was infant salvation, but a stricter Augustinian interpretation assigning also pain of sense to the state of the children.'

"But while this has been true in the Western Church, this has not generally been true in the Eastern Church. Orthodox theologians are typically baffled by the Western crusade to exclude unbaptized infants from Heaven (see, e.g., Fr John Breck, 'Lessons from Limbo'). The Catholic Church, precisely because she is the Catholic Church, cannot restrict Sacred Tradition to Western theological reflection.

"Dr Miller believes that the trajectory of the Tradition witnesses against the salvation of unbaptized infants and cites the judgments of two ecumenical councils, II Lyons and Florence: 'The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or in original sin only immediately descend into hell, even though they suffer different penalties.' Yet one needs to be careful with this text, which is a direct quotation of St Fulgentius. Pope Clement IV included this statement in the profession of faith that he sent to Emperor Michael Palaeologus. In The Christian Faith (Neuner-Dupuis), we read about this profession of faith that it “was not written at the Council, nor was it accepted by the Greeks as a basis for a doctrinal agreement with the Latins. It was neither promulgated, nor even discussed by the Council Fathers, but simply read from a letter sent by the Byzantine emperor” (p. 17). The Fulgentius citation was, however, subsequently included in the Florentine decree Laetentus caeli. Traditional Catholics understandably read Florence as reaffirming the Augustinian belief in the damnation of unbaptized infants, just as they understandably read Florence as consigning, without exception, 'not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics or schismatics' to 'the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Decree for the Copts). Yet the Catholic Church has not restricted itself to a narrow reading of Florence but has affirmed the possibility of salvation for those outside the sacramental bounds of the Church (see William Most).

"The Council of Florence was the one General Council of the second millenium that had a substantial Eastern presence. Though its documents are composed in a Western idiom, this does not mean that the Oriental bishops understood themselves as abandoning in any way their fundamental theological convictions. Their subscription to the decree, therefore, does not mean that they suddenly embraced the views of Augustine and Fulgentius on original sin and infant damnation. The Council of Florence must be read with both Western and Eastern eyes. It was, after all, a council of reunion.

"It is a basic rule of dogmatic hermeneutics that dogmatic statements, whether conciliar or papal, do not give direct answers to issues that were not seriously debated. In Avery Cardinal Dulles’s words: 'No doctrinal decision of the past directly solves a question that was not asked at the time' (The Survival of Dogma, p. 185). If the question “Do all infants who die without baptism die in original sin?” was not being discussed and argued in the 14th century, as it apparently was not, then the Council of Florence cannot be invoked as providing a definitive, irreformable answer to the question. It may well be that many of the doctors of the council took for granted the possibility, and indeed the reality, of an infant dying “in original sin only”; but this still does not allow us to state that this opinion was formally proposed by the council. That all who die in the state of original sin are excluded from the beatific vision is indeed de fide dogma; but this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that God may regenerate souls by nonsacramental means, even though this possibility might not even have been entertained by the council fathers. This judgment is strengthened by the observation that the paragraph of Laetentus caeli that addresses baptism and original sin is not formulated in the language of solemn definition: it does not call for an irrevocable act of faith and anathematize the contradictory proposition. In his important essay 'Unbaptized Infants: May They Be Saved?' Peter Gumpel asserts that the issue addressed by Florence in the paragraph on original sin is the timing of divine retribution—at the the time of death or at the final judgment. 'The thesis that there are (some) infants who die de facto in the state of original sin,' he concludes, 'is therefore not directly defined'” (Downside Review 72 [November 1954]), p. 432).

"The Decree for the Copts also includes a statement on the necessity of baptism for children:

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

Gumpel notes that the Latin can be equally translated as 'for there is no other remedy available for us by which we can come to their rescue' and suggests that this fits in well with the context of the decree, whose aim was 'to eradicate the Jacobite practice of delaying Baptism or of using other means in its place' (p. 434).

"In his book Limbo: An Unsettled Question (1964), George J. Dyer surveys the history of theological reflection on the question of the salvation of unbaptized infants. He concludes:

During the centuries of the limbo controversy the Church refrained from taking sides. She stepped into the dispute repeatedly, but only to lay down certain rules. Limbo might be defended; it might be rejected; the Church made it clear that neither the defenders nor the opponents of limbo had the right to censure their antagonists. The Church’s action may seem indefinite, but actually it brought an end to the long dispute. But insisting on the orthodoxy of both Augustinians and limbo theologians the Holy See robbed the question of much of its forensic value. … The papal decisions of 1758 and 1794 drew the sting from the controversy, and the dispute itself did not long survive. The Church treated the doctrine of limbo and the denial of limbo simply as 'opinions' of theologians; she has been content with her decision to the present day. (pp. 88-89)

"Might one argue that the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision has been infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church? This is a plausible claim, yet to establish it one must not only demonstrate that this was a common, perhaps the common, opinion of the bishops of the Church, but also that they have taught it with a moral unanimity and dogmatic definitiveness. That such moral unanimity and dogmatic definitiveness was ever achieved seems unlikely, given Eastern understanding of original sin, baptism, and theosis. And within the second millenium Western Church there have always been those who have found problematic the automatic exclusion of unbaptized infants from Heaven. The great Cajetan was one such theologian. Despite concerns, the fathers of the Council of Trent refused to formally condemn his views. In preparation for his study of limbo, Dyer surveyed 19th and 20th century catechetical literature. In the 19th century only half the catechists surveyed taught the existence of limbo, and only two of them mentioned it by name. In the 20th century, only one-third of the surveyed catechists taught the doctrine (p. 89). In the essay cited above, Gumpel reports that 20th century Catholic theologians increasingly became unwilling to assert the exclusion of all unbaptized infants from the beatific vision as a necessary Catholic belief. In the early 1950s, for example, the respected manualist Ludwig Ott listed the following as legitimate Catholic views:

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and 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. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 114)

"In preparation for Vatican II, a schema was prepared entitled 'To Save in Its Purity the Deposit of Faith.' This schema included a chapter condemning those who criticized limbo. When the schema was discussed by the General Preparatory Commission, a number of cardinals and bishops objected to it. The chapter was cancelled. Limbo is pointedly omitted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), and in the original version of Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II went so far as to tell women who have had abortions, 'You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.'

[MR note: The definitive Latin text says, Infantum autem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere, “Moreover, you are able to entrust with hope your infant to the same Father and His mercy.” The Church’s teaching is clear, and authoritatively expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God … Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”]

Robert Miller is correct when he writes that 'the direction of the tradition is obvious,” but he has misread that direction.'" [END]

MRyan continues to document, explain and give great comfort to those who have the wisdom to see the workings of the Holy Ghost throughout the centuries in our Catholic Church. It is truly a gift to see how the very core of our Faith remains protected throughout continual crisis and attacks by the devil to destroy Her both from within and without. Everything on Earth and in eternity always comes down to the struggle between good and evil. This forum is no exception.

Over the centuries many in the Church along with blogs and forums notwithstanding, there has been great discussions, debates and agonizing over the mercies of God. Some have diluted or twisted truth into a meaningless or complicated confusion of thought. Others have reduced doctrine to babel. Some extremist are missing one or more of the teaching and conversion process by leaving out the intertwined necessities of Love and Charity through truth. It takes all three to complete the teaching mission. We must teach and hope to be taught the faith accurately according to the will of God. It is perfectly acceptable and the right thing to do always and any time we can not grasp something as hard as we might try to simply leave the issue in the hands of our loving God rather than try to defend or dig the hole deeper when we are truly in over our heads. We not only might error but also might lead others to error and thus offend God. To live our faith devoutly by example and by adhering to the hard fast truths that the Church holds as true, knowing that many of the Saints have died for them, while leaving the "hope" and " mercies" beyond these truths that are possibilities to God ( Jesus and Blessed Mother ) makes it much easier to focus on the Cross of Salvation and the unblemished core of our One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, our Saviour, Jesus Christ.


JMJ,

George

Over at the blog “The Divine Lamp” (http://thedivinelamp.stblogs.com/2007/04/22/limbo/), Dim Bulb (gotta love it) published an interesting summary of Al Kimel’s 5 essays on “Limbo” (see http://pontifications.wordpress.com/limbo/).

I was particularly stuck by the comments of Dr. Thomas Pink cited by Kimel and by "Dim Bulb" (which were taken from “the Pontifcator’s combox”) regarding Cardinal Cajetan and the Council of Trent. Unfortunately, Rev. Kimel's combox is closed, so I appreciate “The Divine Lamp” having saved at least some of Dr. Pink’s comments.

If that name sounds familiar, some of you may remember my post featuring Dr. Pink's excellent article on Religious Liberty (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t529-coercion-and-liberty-reframing-the-debate).

Dim Bulb wrote:

“Father Al Kimel of Pontification has up a series of post on the subject of Limbo. I would like to summarize some of them.

“[…] After noting that the Cardinal [Ratzinger] does not go into details concerning why he find the [Limbo] hypothesis problematic, Kimel gives us two reasons of his own detailing why he himself dislikes it. “Limbus infantium,” he notes, “undermines the freedom of God.” In this part of his post he gives an interesting and not very well known account of the great Cardinal Cajetan’s experience at the Council of Trent:

Cajetan’s view on vicarious baptism of desire was discussed by the Tridentine fathers during their deliberations on baptism in February 1547. Thanks in large part to the arguments of Cardinal Seripando, the fathers refused to condemn Cajetan and left the question of waterless baptism dogmatically open (see comment by Dr Thomas Pink).

“The comment by Dr Thomas Pink which appears in the Pontifcator’s combox reads:

The non-salvation (in limbo or hell) of children who die before receiving ordinary sacramental baptism by water simply is not a defined truth or dogma of the church, and no serious theologian supposes otherwise. What is a dogma is the necessity for salvation of baptism in some form. But the reference to Cajetan above makes it worth pointing something out of great importance. The issue of how the necessity of baptism was to be understood was discussed at Trent, in February 1547, at the formulation of the decree on baptism.

As is well-known, Cajetan had claimed that children who die in the womb without ordinary sacramental baptism might be saved through a desire of their parents for their baptism.

Such was the prevailing suspicion of ‘Pelagianism’, Cajetan’s view was found very shocking by many council fathers, and there were requests that it be condemned. But Cajetan’s view was saved from condemnation by Seripando, who defended its licitness by, amongst other considerations, invoking the Divine will that all be saved. Following Seripando’s intervention, the council legates made it very clear that the Council’s definition that baptism is necessary for salvation should not be understood to exclude theories of salvation by ‘waterless’ baptism or baptism-equivalents such as Cajetan’s. By the council’s own will and its understanding of its own decree, the question was to remain dogmatically open. (For the discussion at Trent, see that highly interesting source, the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, volume 2, columns 305-06.) Emphasis in the above quote is mine [Dim bulb’s; color highlight mine]

“All of this helps lead to an important point [by Kimel]:

Salvation is by the Incarnate Word alone, for in him divinity and humanity have been reconciled and forever united. He is the mediator between God and man. Salvation is by the Church, for the Church is the sacramental, Spirit-filled body of the glorified Christ and Christ is never found without his body. Salvation is by the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, because Baptism incorporates the believer into the Church, in which he is reborn by the Holy Spirit. If we would properly understand the necessity of Baptism, we must understand the salvific relations between Christ, Church, and sacramental initiation. Baptism is not a mere legal requirement, as if God has arbitrarily decreed that he will not save anyone except those who have been washed with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity. Baptism saves because the Church saves, and the Church saves because Christ saves, and Christ saves because he is the Almighty Creator who has redeemed and deified human nature in himself.

Every person born into the world is born into a state of alienation from God. Every person, therefore, needs to be regenerated in the Holy Spirit; every person needs to be restored to a state of grace and supernatural life. The ordinary and normative “place” for this rebirth is the Sacrament of Baptism. “The Church does not know,” declares the Catechism, “of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (1257). But our ignorance is not the limit of God’s power and freedom. God has covenanted himself to the sacramental actions of the Church; but he has not restricted himself to them. If the Holy Trinity can baptize infants in his Holy Spirit through sacramental washing, he can, if he so wills, baptize infants in his Holy Spirit apart from sacramental washing.

END of selected citation