baptism of desire Vs Limbo

Elisa wrote:Reminds me of Protestant positions of “either/or” instead of the Catholic positions of “both/and.” Protestants often will choose between faith or works, instead of both faith and works. Because the Bible says we are saved by faith and the bible says we are not saved by “works of man.” (ignoring that there are works of God that men can participate in.) Praying to Christ or to Saints instead of praying to both. Scripture or Tradition instead of both. We are saved by God’s grace alone instead of God’s grace that we accept and participate in by our free will. That Holy Communion is only spiritual instead of it being spiritual and physical.

They take some Words of Scripture and form a decision one way, while ignoring the rest of the Words of Scripture. And they interpret the Word of Scripture differently and apart from the way the Church interprets them.

Reminds me of what is going on hear with the Words of Tradition. Taking some and not taking them as a whole. Ignoring other Words and not trying to reconcile them all together. And interpreting Tradition differently and apart from how the Church interprets it.

Both/and:

That Baptism is necessary for salvation, but that God can provide the effects of baptism to some (not the norm) in some other way known only to Himself.

Both parts of that statement being true. Not either/or like Protestant mentality.


So Jehanne takes part of the 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.


But he ignores this part:

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.


All that can be true, as well as this part:

Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.


We need to trust that ALL that the Church teaches is true and can all be reconciled, even if we do not understand it.

More modernistic nonsense.

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.

Elisa wrote:The dodo example doesn’t compare to these discussions.

One is a scientific fact. (and even those can be changed when there is further evidence. A dodo could be discovered somewhere. It happens all the time with species previously deemed extinct) A fact is not subject to interpretation by the Church.

Theology is subject by interpretation by the Church. (But not subject to private interpretation) You are equating dodos with what we are saying and it doesn’t equate.

Same with the math equation. God is not a mathematical equation.

Please read my post on the other thread about how you are interpreting salvation to be limbo incorrectly. The Church has NEVER in 2,000 years called salvation anything other than Heaven.

If true (and the burden is on you to show that), then JP II was at least a material heretic. However, Saint Thomas taught,

"Although unbaptised 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, Supplement (Appendix I), Q.1, A.2)

In this way, Limbo is "salvific," for the damned in Hell have no connection to the One and Triune God.

Elisa wrote:Mryan,

“your own infallible interpretation” and “his own personal skewed theology?”

Yet it agrees with the catechism of the catholic church and authoritative statements by Popes.

Does that make sense to anyone? lol

Good night all.
God bless you.
Love,
Elisa

No, it doesn't.

So, Pope Pius X was wrong when approved this text:

"Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life."

This is my last post for this thread. I am going to collect all of these statements of the Church's Magesterium and email them to Brother Andre Maria. The St. Benedict Center definitively needs to do an article on this.

Jehanne wrote:
Funny, where's this "hope" of a "way of salvation" for infants who die without Baptism?

Sorry, but you are a very, very poor historian!

Go ahead and ignore the fact of your totally discredited accusation where you said that I "reject" the "sacramental theology" of St. Thomas Aquinas and the fact of your total incompetency in not knowing the difference between sacramental and speculative theology. Even the Theological Commission report on Limbo makes it clear that Limbo has been a common doctrine since the Middle Ages, but speculations over the degrees of sense suffering (of loss) and a state of "natural happiness" remain entirely in the realm of speculative theology.

Since your latest stuff will not stick to the wall, you just keep throwing anything that keeps us distracted from what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches and what the Theological Commission report actually says. Btw, only the former is a magisterial document, while the latter is non-magisterial, but approved by Pope Benedict XVI for publication as a non-authoritative explanation for why the the CCC was justified in saying that there are reasons for hope that God may provide the grace of salvation for unbaptized infants, though the Church continues to affirm that she knows of no other way than the sacrament of baptism that can assure their salvation.

Yet, here you are accusing me of being a "poor historian" when I never once made a "historical" argument for "hope"; and neither did the International Theological Commission report which focused on the Biblical, theological and liturgical justifications for "hope" while acknowledging "that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo" that "remains ... a possible theological hypothesis" and "the common doctrine that unbaptised infants cannot attain the Beatific Vision" (that VCII chose not to address, but to leave open for further study).

It also says "This document deals with the hope that Christians can have for the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. It indicates how such a hope has developed in recent decades and what its grounds are, so as to enable an account of that hope to be given."

So what part of "hope" being a more recent "development in doctrine", as the Commission report makes clear, do you not understand?

The Church, for the first several centuries, allowed the faithful to believe in the "common doctrine" of St. Augustine that all un-batized infants were consigned to the torments of hell-fire, even if this eternal torment was "slight".

In other words, there was no positive or explicit Scriptural, theological, liturgical or "historical" precedence for another doctrine and it took a St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, to develop a justification for a state of "natural happiness" in a region of hell devoid of hell-fire.

So your problem isn't with me, its with the Church which dares to offer "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants, while recognizing and affirming that she still knows of no other means than Baptism that can assure their salvation.

MRyan,
I think Duckbill has got you. As I see it you don't make enough of a distinction in levels of authority. I think that is Duckbill's point. By your way of think, one should become a Sedevacantist because the doctrine of infants can't be saved without Baptism is just as strong, no, stronger, than baptism of desire. So if that doctrine can be questioned, then baptism of desire can as well. Otherwise if we took your stance on baptism of desire and applied it to B16 (CCC, Vatican committee, et al.) then he would be a heretic, and therefore not be pope.

baptism of desire has never been taught from the Chair of Peter and, as you say, things developed in the recent decades to say that infants can be saved without Baptism, then the same could be said for baptism of desire, in recent decades there has been reason to doubt it.

Jehanne wrote:
So, Pope Pius X was wrong when approved this text:

"Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life."

Only if Pope Benedict XVI was wrong when he approved this text:

“The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.'" And “All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (CCC 1257, 1261)

Do you not understand that even with “hope” that an unbaptized child may, through the mercy of God and His tenderness towards children, attain eternal life, “fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children” of the only means that assures the child “of eternal life"?

When did the Church change this teaching?

Jehanne wrote:This is my last post for this thread. I am going to collect all of these statements of the Church's Magesterium and email them to Brother Andre Maria. The St. Benedict Center definitively needs to do an article on this.

Good idea, take a break. And I can't wait for the “definitive” article by the St. Benedict Center on the valid and common doctrine of the Church on Limbo and the Church's more recent teaching on the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants.

Gee, do you think that the St. Benedict Center will tell you that Limbo is still a “common doctrine” and do you think the St. Benedict Center will tell you that the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on “hope” cannot “bind” anyone and thus, you are free to hold to the more traditional doctrine while removing all hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants?

Will you then give obsequium religiosum to the St. Benedict Center?

What will not be mentioned in the article, I am willing to wager, is any mention of the religious submission of the mind and will to the authentic and ordinary teaching of the Magisterium; with the degree of submission predicated on the manifested will of the supreme teacher; “His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (Lumen Gentium 25a)

Even with Limbo remaining the more common doctrine, obsequium religiosum of will and intellect cannot involve any overt “rejection” of the Church's more recent teaching on “hope” (such an outright rejection of the Church's authority by telling the Church she has no authority in such matters), but neither does it require any “rejection” of the common doctrine of Limbo.

The Church has not closed Limbo, but neither has she “definitively” closed the door to the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants.

That you would ask the St. Benedict Center to “'definitively” tell us what the Church's position is on Limbo and “hope”, rather than listening to the authoritative voice of the Church, only reinforces the suspicion that certain “Feeneyites” can't think for themselves, or with the mind of Church, without having Fr. Feeney or the St. Benedict Center explain to them what the mind of the Church really is (or telling them that the “present” Church has lost its mind, or is absent-minded).

Good luck with that.

cowboy wrote:MRyan,
I think Duckbill has got you. As I see it you don't make enough of a distinction in levels of authority. I think that is Duckbill's point. By your way of think, one should become a Sedevacantist because the doctrine of infants can't be saved without Baptism is just as strong, no, stronger, than baptism of desire. So if that doctrine can be questioned, then baptism of desire can as well. Otherwise if we took your stance on baptism of desire and applied it to B16 (CCC, Vatican committee, et al.) then he would be a heretic, and therefore not be pope.

baptism of desire has never been taught from the Chair of Peter and, as you say, things developed in the recent decades to say that infants can be saved without Baptism, then the same could be said for baptism of desire, in recent decades there has been reason to doubt it.

I am not even going to begin to unpack this load of factual errors, logical fallacies, ridiculous conclusions and just plain sloppy and confused thinking, why bother.

Duckbill hasn't "got" me or anyone else, and he knows it. Every one of his false assertions has been refuted and he now admits that the thinks he understands what I am saying, but, gee, he can't be sure. But he is willing to "discuss" if I agree to, well, discuss it.

Thanks for your valuable input.

And, oh sure, the Church's teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire has gone through some recent developments that suggest that they are NOT the common doctrines of the Church they were always held to be. In fact, to confirm this recent development against these doctrines, the Church thought it opportune to confirm this by teaching in her Roman Catechism that she has always held the firm conviction that baptism of desire and baptism of blood assures the salvation of those who are properly disposed and who are prevented from receiving the sacrament.

Oh yeah, that sounds like a real "development" in the opposite direction to me!

And I bet you still believe in the tooth fairy.

thanks Cowboy I think you understand me well, I don't kow about Sedevacanism, though.

MRyan
I'll see your "always held the firm conviction" for baptism of desire
and raise you "lacking solid foundation" for salvation of unbaptized infants.

duckbill wrote:thanks Cowboy I think you understand me well, I don't kow about Sedevacanism, though.

Now there's a scary thought. Two peas in a pod.

Let's get back to business and review what you said in your opening gambit:

duckbill wrote:Limbo has been a well established doctrine in the same vain as baptism of desire, even more authoritatively proposed. But Cardinal Ratzinger feels free to discard it or at least question its validity

So it seems that Pope B16 has the same perspective as he did as theologian Cardinal Ratzinger-- 'Limbo can be discarded if need be.'

But the theological pedigree of Limbo is as significant as baptism of desire. So can't we question baptism of desire and discarded it if need be, as the Ratzinger suggests?

No, you can't, because not only has Limbo not been “discarded” as you tried to allege when you said that the Theological Commission said “we believe that Limbo doesn't exist”, but the Catholic Church STILL teaches and affirms the doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire when she teaches even more strongly in her CCC that the Church has always held the firm conviction that baptism of blood and baptism of desire assure the salvation of those who die with the grace of the sacrament without water baptism.

Since when has the Church ever allowed anyone to “discard” her non-defined doctrines she presents to the Faithful through her authentic and ordinary Magisterium when she demands of the faithful the religious submission of the mind and will to all such authoritative and ordinary teachings, especially to those she affirms she has always held?

Yours is the doctrine of “non-servium” which can only come from the Father of Lies. The Church gives you ample room to “discuss” the required degree of submission, and even gives you some latitude for withholding assent of the intellect should you find the doctrines difficult to reconcile with your fallible and even faulty understanding of tradition and defined dogma, but she does not allow you to accuse her of teaching a false doctrine or of presenting doctrines which are in clear opposition to her own traditions.

Not satisfied with this latitude which allows you to withhold submission of the intellect (for a just cause) while submitting one's will to the authority of the Church teaching (Lord, I believe, help my unbelief), you will not be satisfied until you are allowed to “discard” and “reject” the Church's authentic and ordinary teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire which, contrary to your assertion, have a much stronger “pedigree” than does the rather late arrival of the common doctrine of Limbo.

You want to have that discussion? I haven't gone anywhere.

Since when has the Church ever allowed anyone to “discard” her non-defined doctrines she presents to the Faithful through her authentic and ordinary Magisterium when she demands of the faithful the religious submission of the mind and will to all such authoritative and ordinary teachings, especially to those she affirms she has always held?

Well, the way you define "authentic and ordinary Magisterium," it got rid of the need for Baptism as the only remedy for infants for salvation, which was "until recent decades" the authentic and ordinary Magisterium.

PS: the "discard" thingy was just a paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger of what he wanted to do with Limbo.

duckbill wrote:

Since when has the Church ever allowed anyone to “discard” her non-defined doctrines she presents to the Faithful through her authentic and ordinary Magisterium when she demands of the faithful the religious submission of the mind and will to all such authoritative and ordinary teachings, especially to those she affirms she has always held?

Well, the way you define "authentic and ordinary Magisterium," it got rid of the need for Baptism as the only remedy for infants for salvation, which was "until recent decades" the authentic and ordinary Magisterium.

I did not "define" anything. If you wish to argue that the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, as they are presented in the CCC, in Canon law (1917 and 1983) and in other magisterial documents are not part of the authentic and ordinary teachings of the Magisterium, then make your case.

And your statement that the "'authentic and ordinary Magisterium' ... got rid of the need for Baptism as the only remedy for infants for salvation" is of course a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of what the Church actually teaches.

If hope is now allowed for God to save un-baptized chlidren through a remedy unknown to the Church (which can only bring to the child the saving waters of Baptism), then yes, in that sense the child would not have need for baptism. But the "need" for Baptism remains as a necessity of means (at least extrinsically) because the Church knows of no other means that can assure the child of his salvation, which is why it is still a grievous sin to recklessly delay a child's baptism based on some false assurance that the child does not "need" Baptism.

Of course, you would also say that with baptism of desire and baptism of blood that the Church "got rid of the need for baptism", because you reject the theological distinctions recognized by the Church on necessity of means.

duckbill wrote:PS: the "discard" thingy was just a paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger of what he wanted to do with Limbo.

And I said, I am not particularity concerned with what Cardinal Ratzinger said 36 years ago as a private theologian; even if you tried to square this knot with the Theological Commission; I was more concerned with your total misrepresentation of what the International Theological Commission reported when you alleged that it said that “we believe that Limbo doesn't exist”.

The statement is false, and not just a "paraphrase" of what you thought it said.

MRyan,

The Church gives you ample room to “discuss” the required degree of submission, and even gives you some latitude for withholding assent of the intellect should you find the doctrines difficult to reconcile with your fallible and even faulty understanding of tradition and defined dogma, but she does not allow you to accuse her of teaching a false doctrine or of presenting doctrines which are in clear opposition to her own traditions.

Nicely put.

Thanks, Tornpage.

As you know, I was simply paraphrasing the words of our present Pope and the Church's official instructions on how one should handle a legitimate difficulty one might encounter with a certain un-defined but magisterial teaching of the Church.

"Discard" and "rejection" should not be in a Catholic's vocabulary when it comes to submission to the Ecclesia Docens.

MRyan wrote:

duckbill wrote:PS: the "discard" thingy was just a paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger of what he wanted to do with Limbo.

And I said, I am not particularity concerned with what Cardinal Ratzinger said 36 years ago as a private theologian; even if you tried to square this knot with the Theological Commission; I was more concerned with your total misrepresentation of what the International Theological Commission reported when you alleged that it said that “we believe that Limbo doesn't exist”.

This is modernistic double speak. They say we can hope all babies who die without Baptism are saved but then say we must Baptize babies. Either they need Baptism or they don't it can't be both ways.

The statement is false, and not just a "paraphrase" of what you thought it said.

You don't care because it shows your theory doesn't apply to Cardinal Ratzinger. So your theory only started 36 years ago AFTER Ratzinger made his comment? Please...
By your theory he was a heretic 36 years ago and never seemed to retracted his statement.

Here is the double speak commission:

"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament."http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Please, in what universe do they live in? If they say infants can go to heaven without Baptism OF COURSE people will delay Baptism! It is a natural psychological reaction. Baptism becomes nice but not necessary.


How can they say infants can go to heaven ( i.e.Limbo doesn't exist), and then turn around and say Baptism is necessary for infants? This is pure Orwellian double speak and condemned by Pius X in his syllabus against Modernism:
"24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are
historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not
directly deny the dogmas themselves ."http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

You can claim 'victory" all you and your pea in the pod (Tornpage) cheerleader want, but you can't have it both ways. The necessity of infants being baptized goes back to the Church Fathers and NOW the 21 century sees that it wasn't necessary, just a strong recommendation because they can be saved without Baptism.

Limbo is a theory in as much as we don't understand what goes on there ( whether Augustine or Thomas theory) but it is part of the ordinary universal magisterium as to its existence. It makes sense of the council or Lyons and Florence saying:
Council of Lyons II:
The souls of those who die
in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.DZ 464

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence:
Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin
or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds. DZ 693

Who has ONLY original sin? Infants! Who else could these declaration be pointed to? unbaptized children? the mentally disabled? All of which would go to Limbo. But if we have "hope" (i.e. Baptism isn't necessary) then the baptism of desire mafia has had its way and has obscured yet another doctrine.

You are "pounding on an open door," which is why I have stopped (for real, this time) posting on this thread. MRyan, Elisa, etc., are going to tell you, "You have to believe whatever the present-day Magisterium is telling/teaching you, and not only that, you have to accept our interpretation of said teaching, or at least some theological commissions interpretation of said teaching." I do not agree with either of those assertions, and while not being a sede (not yet, at least), for me, the time has come to politely "agree to disagree."

I think you are right Jehanne. MRyan and company have lost this debate. baptism of desire is a theory as much as Limbo is a theory and the doors of debate have been open to it, even if MRyan doesn't like it.

And Duckbill I stand by my accusation that MRyans logic leads to Sedevicantism. He stole his whole thesis of debate from them as they battle the Dimonds. He has labeled everything infallible, even catechisms, which no theologian has ever put their weight behind. He says that baptism of desire is infallible but rejects Limbo as infallible. He needs to rethink his position, it makes no sense.

cowboy wrote:I think you are right Jehanne. MRyan and company have lost this debate. baptism of desire is a theory as much as Limbo is a theory and the doors of debate have been open to it, even if MRyan doesn't like it.

And Duckbill I stand by my accusation that MRyans logic leads to Sedevicantism. He stole his whole thesis of debate from them as they battle the Dimonds. He has labeled everything infallible, even catechisms, which no theologian has ever put their weight behind. He says that baptism of desire is infallible but rejects Limbo as infallible. He needs to rethink his position, it makes no sense.

Cowboy, it is always interesting when you weigh-in because, like Art Linkletter used to say, “kids say the darndest things”.

I have put you on basic “ignore” because your accusations are so full of outright falsehoods, logical fallacies, false conclusions and just plain sloppy thinking that I knew it would be a waste of time trying to correct you.

This time, however, I'm calling you out and will insist that you back-up your irresponsible and false accusations.

Please demonstrate:

- Where I denied that Baptism of desire is a common doctrine (or theological opinion) as much as Limbo

- Where I denied that the debate is open to either un-defined doctrine

- Where I said that the Catechism is “infallible”

- Where I said that baptism of desire is infallible beyond affirming that the Council of Trent is infallible when it dogmatically and infallibly affirmed that the desire for baptism may effect a translation to justification; and beyond affirming that the doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire is infallible in the sense that it cannot be opposed to Catholic dogma.

Do you understand such Catholic concepts? It is painfully obvious that you don't.

Charity and justice demand that you back-up your accusations with proof, or retract them.

Jehanne wrote:You are "pounding on an open door," which is why I have stopped (for real, this time) posting on this thread. MRyan, Elisa, etc., are going to tell you, "You have to believe whatever the present-day Magisterium is telling/teaching you, and not only that, you have to accept our interpretation of said teaching, or at least some theological commissions interpretation of said teaching." I do not agree with either of those assertions, and while not being a sede (not yet, at least), for me, the time has come to politely "agree to disagree."

If Jehanne had what it takes to defend his positions, he would not be running off seeking refuge in the “definitive” judgments of the St. Benedict Center, or contemplating joining the sede camp.

But, he may have other reasons for leaving, and I respect that.

Once again, however, we see “belief” (the assent of faith) being mistaken for religious submission to the authority of the ecclesia docens.

But haven't such misrepresentations of assent and submission become par for the course, along with the failure to acknowledge the Church's authority over her authentic and ordinary teachings?

I can't help but wonder if some of the more “moderate” Feeneyites on this forum are not somewhat embarrassed by what is being presented by certain members of the hard-core contingent.

MRyan wrote:

Please demonstrate:

- Where I denied that Baptism of desire is a common doctrine (or theological opinion) as much as Limbo

- Where I denied that the debate is open to either un-defined doctrine

- Where I said that the Catechism is “infallible”

- Where I said that baptism of desire is infallible beyond affirming that the Council of Trent is infallible when it dogmatically and infallibly affirmed that the desire for baptism may effect a translation to justification; and beyond affirming that the doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire is infallible in the sense that it cannot be opposed to Catholic dogma.

Do you understand such Catholic concepts? It is painfully obvious that you don't.

Charity and justice demand that you back-up your accusations with proof, or retract them.

So you admit that the CCC could contain errors and is not infallible?

duckbill wrote:

MRyan wrote:

duckbill wrote:PS: the "discard" thingy was just a paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger of what he wanted to do with Limbo.

And I said, I am not particularity concerned with what Cardinal Ratzinger said 36 years ago as a private theologian; even if you tried to square this knot with the Theological Commission; I was more concerned with your total misrepresentation of what the International Theological Commission reported when you alleged that it said that “we believe that Limbo doesn't exist”.

This is modernistic double speak. They say we can hope all babies who die without Baptism are saved but then say we must Baptize babies. Either they need Baptism or they don't it can't be both ways.

The statement is false, and not just a "paraphrase" of what you thought it said.

You don't care because it shows your theory doesn't apply to Cardinal Ratzinger. So your theory only started 36 years ago AFTER Ratzinger made his comment? Please...
By your theory he was a heretic 36 years ago and never seemed to retracted his statement.

And what “theory” of mine is that? You mean the Commission's findings and grounds for the Biblical, theological and liturgical reasons for the “hope” of salvation that is allowed for un-baptized infants as it is taught by the ordinary Magisterium in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

And by what “theory” can Cardinal Ratzinger become a “heretic” for stating his personal belief as a private theologian that the common (since the Middle Ages) but undefined doctrine of Limbo does not exist?

Are you so ignorant of Catholic teaching that you do not know the difference between the denial of an article of faith or defined dogma and holding an opinion at odds with a non-revealed and never defined common doctrine that is in its essence a theological construct that carves out a region of hell devoid of hell-fire and material suffering, and where its un-baptized occupants enjoy an eternity of natural happiness?

It would indeed be heretical to hold that those who die (and are so judged) with the stain of original sin can obtain the beatific vision and avoid hell. But that is NOT what Cardinal Ratzinger said. If Limbo does not exist, than the salvation of un-baptized infants is, by logical necessity, contingent upon our Lord applying the merits of His Blood to these children prior to their entrance into heaven.

As a theological “opinion” it is opposed to the more common doctrine, but it is not heretical. All of those years on Catholic forums, and the fact that such fundamental Catholic precepts can escape you, is truly amazing.

duckbill wrote:Here is the double speak commission:

"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the the sacrament. "http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Please, in what universe do they live in? If they say infants can go to heaven without Baptism OF COURSE people will delay Baptism! It is a natural psychological reaction. Baptism becomes nice but not necessary.

The "double speak commission", as opposed to the "double speak Magisterium", or do they compliment each others "double speak"?

And who are these “people” you speak of who will neglect to have their children baptized because there is hope that God may save them?

Are you suggesting that people are prone to accept from this teaching what they want to accept, and disregard the admonition about the urgency of having their children baptized?

Will they become like the Greek Orthodox who typically wait 6 or 7 months before baptizing their children (as I have read)?

While you express a legitimate concern, the “people” who are going to interpret the Catechism the way they want to would continue to do so even if the Catechism removed “all hope” of salvation for un-baptized children.

The poorly catechized will remain poorly catechized so long as they wish to remain so, or are inclined to believe whatever they want to believe no matter what the Church says.

And what is the “psychological” reaction of these same “people” who are told that their un-baptized dead children will spend an eternity in hell, but, perhaps, in a place of “natural happiness” in hell?

Again, who are these “people” who would have their children baptized if they thought there was no hope of salvation, but will now neglect to have their children baptized because hope is allowed, even if the Church tells them that they must not neglect or unduly delay baptism? You mean the “pick-and-choose” Catholics who are going to believe whatever they want to believe? Now, there's a novel thought.

Do you think that the number of abortions will now increase because mother's will think that the Church teaches that “Baptism is nice but not necessary”?

What universe do YOU live in?

How can they say infants can go to heaven ( i.e.Limbo doesn't exist), and then turn around and say Baptism is necessary for infants? This is pure Orwellian double speak and condemned by Pius X in his syllabus against Modernism:

"24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not
directly deny the dogmas themselves ."http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Let me guess, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is condemned because it has constructed premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful" even if does not directly deny the dogmas themselves.

Why don't you just come out and accuse the Catholic Church of denying her own dogma on baptism? Why hide behind the safety of condemning an non-authoritative Theological Commission when it is the Catehism of the Catholic Church that puts into concrete form what the Conmmission can only provide the theolgical and liturgical baises for?

And you speak to me of double speak?

It is not double-speak to allow for “hope” for the salvation of un-baptized infants and to insist that it is still gravely sinful to neglect to have one's infant baptized. “Hope” is NOT the assurance of salvation and the Church does not know of any other remedy other than Baptism that can provide this assurance.

I'm sure you would apply “Orwellian double-speak” to the Church's teaching on the assurance of salvation for those who die by baptism of blood and baptism of desire, while the Church cannot give any assurance that “so and so” actually died in such a state (except those declared saints/Martyrs by the Church).

To be consistent, you would also have to accuse the Church of “Orwellian double speak” for her teaching on the necessity of Penance that may lead one to believe that “the sacrament of Penance is nice to have, but not necessary” to those who have fallen from grace, but are given the “hope” of salvation if they can muster a “perfect contrition” without the sacrament.

Necessity and “hope”, if the remedy cannot be realized in re, are not opposed. For the infant, for the catechumen and for the baptized penitent, the necessity of the sacrament remains.

You can claim 'victory" all you and your pea in the pod (Tornpage) cheerleader want, but you can't have it both ways. The necessity of infants being baptized goes back to the Church Fathers and NOW the 21 century sees that it wasn't necessary, just a strong recommendation because they can be saved without Baptism.

That's a real nice paraphrase of Catholic teaching. I'm sure Tornpage would agree.

duckbill wrote:Limbo is a theory in as much as we don't understand what goes on there ( whether Augustine or Thomas theory) but it is part of the ordinary universal magisterium as to its existence.

Let me get this straight. Limbo, is a “theory” in as much as we don't know what goes on there, but, as to its existence as a place in hell (where we do not not what goes on), it's existence is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

You mean the “infallible” ordinary and universal magisterium?

Limbo, as an idea would begin to take form in the 5th century and would be implicit in the teaching of St. Augustine (and subsequently in the Latin Church, but not in the Eastern Church), as a place in hell where only the mildest forms of physical sense suffering is realized for those who die with the non-personal fault of original sin alone, is, you say, notwithstanding what really goes on there, a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Baptism of blood and baptism of desire, on the other hand, as I believe you hold, even though they were already being manifested in the teachings of the Fathers in the 3rd century (especially baptism of blood), long before the idea of Limbo would develop; and are doctrines that would be confirmed at the Council of Trent and its Catechism (baptism of desire), and are doctrines which have been universally held since at least the Council of Trent and have been taught by the authentic and ordinary Magisterium in her various authoritative documents and by name in her official universal Catechism which confirms that the Church has always held these doctrines, if I understand you correctly, are NOT (as is, allegedly, Limbo) doctrines of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, and are not doctrines at all, but theological constructions Catholics are free to “reject” and are free to refuse submission (of intellect and will) to the authority of the Church teaching.

I just want to make sure I understand what you were saying.

duckbill wrote:It makes sense of the council or Lyons and Florence saying:

Council of Lyons II:
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.DZ 464

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence:
Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds. DZ 693

Who has ONLY original sin? Infants! Who else could these declaration be pointed to? unbaptized children? the mentally disabled? All of which would go to Limbo. But if we have "hope" (i.e. Baptism isn't necessary) then the baptism of desire mafia has had its way and has obscured yet another doctrine.

Now you will have to explain why a separate designation called “Limbo” was needed to explain the fact that “those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds”.

In fact, it is a well established common doctrine that even personal sins may undergo punishments of different kinds, even if none of those so punished can escape the “torments”; and the doctrine of St. Augustine on un-baptized infants did not include a punishment without physical torments.

The Council of Florence says nothing about the lack of physical suffering as “different kind” of punishment. So where is the doctrine of Limbo in these dogmatic declarations?

Limbo does not make any sense unless it is designated as a separate place in hell where the torments of fire cannot touch the occupants. To state that the existence of Limbo has been held universally when it is an idea that would blossom only in the Latin Church and has as its common definition a place without sense (physical) suffering which did not develop until the Middle Ages, is to run roughshod over the doctrine and to impose some imaginary universal tradition and universal pedigree to the doctrine.

cowboy wrote:
So you admit that the CCC could contain errors and is not infallible?

I repeat, I do NOT admit to beating my wife.

The CCC may in fact contain errors, but it may not, as a sure guide for teaching Catholic doctrine, contain errors that are opposed to the dogmas of the Church.

In other words, the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, as they are presented in the CCC and other magisterial documents as teachings of the authentic and ordinary Magisterium, cannot be opposed to the dogma of baptism, or any other dogma.

You're not done, I want to see the "proofs" which substantiate your reckless accusations.

MRyan

Were you in the seminary? If not, how did you acquire all of this knowledge?

Duckbill,

You can claim 'victory" all you and your pea in the pod (Tornpage) cheerleader want, but you can't have it both ways.

Very funny.

I agree with truth wherever I find it, and it is often found with the position of MRyan, and rarely (if ever) found coming from you. It has nothing to do with "cheerleading," as if we were talking about a contest, and not the pursuit of Catholic Truth.

For example, MRyan makes a distinction here that puts a lot of this discussion in context, a distinction totally lost on you as you allege "double speak" and a departure by the Magisterium from its prior formulations of the unchanging truth (as if that were possible in reality, and not only in the perception of sedes and Feeneyites):

It would indeed be heretical to hold that those who die (and are so judged) with the stain of original sin can obtain the beatific vision and avoid hell. But that is NOT what Cardinal Ratzinger said. If Limbo does not exist, than the salvation of un-baptized infants is, by logical necessity, contingent upon our Lord applying the merits of His Blood to these children prior to their entrance into heaven.

And the Church has never barred the expression of "hope" that God may indeed apply the merits of Our Lord's Precious Blood through some extraordinary means.

I'm not a cheerleader for MRyan: it's just that you keep getting your clock cleaned, and sometimes when MRyan lands one of his clean right hands I say, "nice shot."
As any objective observer witnessing these arguments might, and should.

Lourdes wrote:MRyan

Were you in the seminary? If not, how did you acquire all of this knowledge?

Lourdes,

Thank you, but seriously, such accolades as to my "knowledge" are undeserving. I have no formal training, and it shows.

I went to the Catholic School of Hard Knocks and if I have acquired some knowledge, it is only because I have a deep and abiding interest in the truth (and a love of the faith).

Trust me when I say that any superficial knowledge I have acquired has come at a price to having my pride being knocked down a few pegs (always a good thing) by those who have acquired more knowledge than I can ever hope to realize. Humility is a virtue I can only aspire to, but find so hard to master.

I am just an amateur apologist who loves the faith, nothing more.

Tornpage,

If only they knew how we "cheer-lead" for each other when it comes to say, a robust discussion on predestination!

I can vouch for the fact that Tornpage follows the truth where it leads him and is not a respecter of men when it comes to following the truth and voicing his beliefs.

Besides, I still have scars (healed, of course) from Tornpage - who can give with the best of them!

MRyan wrote:

Lourdes wrote:MRyan

Were you in the seminary? If not, how did you acquire all of this knowledge?

Lourdes,

Thank you, but seriously, such accolades as to my "knowledge" are undeserving. I have no formal training, and it shows.

I went to the Catholic School of Hard Knocks and if I have acquired some knowledge, it is only because I have a deep and abiding interest in the truth (and a love of the faith).

Trust me when I say that any superficial knowledge I have acquired has come at a price to having my pride being knocked down a few pegs (always a good thing) by those who have acquired more knowledge than I can ever hope to realize. Humility is a virtue I can only aspire to, but find so hard to master.

I am just an amateur apologist who loves the faith, nothing more.

Well, that tells you how stupid I am then. It must be a man thing, because my better half is a clear thinker too. His insights amaze me at times and leave me muttering to myself "Now why didn't I think of that?".

I love our faith too, but I can only do so much with the brain God gave me. It is frustrating.

Why does Tornpage get to be head cheerleader? That’s not fair. lol

Seriously, what a joke calling Tornpage (of all people) a cheerleader. I remember the predestination debates, as well as several others. You were both direct, backed up your points and always ended as friends.

I learned a lot from reading both of you over the last couple years. I thank you.

The 3 of us haven’t always agreed, and we all have evolved to the point where we agree on most things now. Praise God. Most importantly, we assent with intellect and will to all the magesterium of the Church teaches, which is not the same thing as assenting with faith to infallible dogma.

Lourdes, you won’t go wrong learning from these good, mature Catholic gentlemen. I learned a lot from them.

We are always learning. It is a never ending process.

Tornpage is right. This is not a contest or game. This is a pursuit of Catholic truth.

Isn’t an ad hominem attack when someone can’t answer a substantive point in an argument, so instead they deflect and try and cast doubt on the reliability of the person making that substantive point? Like calling Tornpage someone’s cheerleader and inferring that MRyan needs a cheerleader to make his points or some here inferring some of us have a pack mentality and can't think correctly for ourselves.

How can they say infants can go to heaven ( i.e.Limbo doesn't exist), and then turn around and say Baptism is necessary for infants?

Duckbill,

The Church has never said that limbo doesn’t exist. It still says it MAY exist. So I believe it MAY exist. The Church also teaches that we can “hope” that these little babies may be saved.

So I believe both are possible. There may be a permanent or temporary limbo, perhaps until the final judgment. Who knows. The Holy Spirit has not yet seen fit to reveal those details.

Even though I tend to “hope” in their salvation, if they die before visible water baptism (and think their salvation is likely perhaps by Christ baptizing them Himself in a realm we do not see), I do not discard the real possibility of limbo. Same with Baptism of Desire. While I personally am allowed by the Church to think it is likely, it is only possible, not definite. Only visible sacramental water baptism is definite.

The Church’s “hope,” my hope, does not minimize either the necessity of baptism or it’s urgency. The possibility of hope does not make the assured salvation from visible water sacramental baptism any less urgent for me.

Which is why I baptized my children the day after they were born in my hospital room, when I was all by myself. I didn’t think it out ahead of time, nor do I recommend it to others, nor defend it as theologically sound. But it came from my heart. I remembered how my grandmother took her children to the Church for the priest to baptize them as soon as she was up to walking.

I don’t consider it their real baptism. I consider their baptisms in Church the real ones. When I wrote about this a couple years ago to some here, I came up with the name “conditional retroactive baptism of emergency” to describe it. Because it was my little insurance policy that if my children didn’t make it to their baptisms a couple months later (which is how the Church does it now,) that perhaps the good Lord would retroactively recognize those in the hospital as valid baptisms of emergency, retroactively. It may not make sense, but I confess it here to show you that I do take water baptism VERY seriously.

Proof that the “hope” for salvation is not opposed to recognizing the urgency of assured water sacramental baptism.

Cowboy,

By “a distinction of level of authority” do you and Duckbill mean that one should intellectually assent to the Catechism that has now been approved by 2 Popes (and agrees with the catechisms from the last 500 years on Baptism of Desire) or Jehanne asking the St. Benedict Center to weigh in on this? Which of the 2 have more authority?

I know that you will not be able to demonstrate with quotes from MRyan your misunderstanding of what he is saying here. Because he never said any of those things you accused him of saying. None of us believe them or have said them.

Please read this quote from MRyan again:

The Church gives you ample room to “discuss” the required degree of submission, and even gives you some latitude for withholding assent of the intellect should you find the doctrines difficult to reconcile with your fallible and even faulty understanding of tradition and defined dogma, but she does not allow you to accuse her of teaching a false doctrine or of presenting doctrines which are in clear opposition to her own traditions.

Perhaps you aren’t reading our posts carefully or perhaps you still need to learn more to understand the distinctions on these points and what the different levels of authority are. Because I think if you do invest the time in learning more, you will understand us better, even if you still don’t agree with us.

Here is a good link I keep in my favorites. It very clearly explains the various levels of definitive teaching and what is required of the faithful. I think it might be helpful to some here.

Please note how it explains the difference between infallible dogma that require the “assent of faith” and authoritative teaching that only requires “assent of intellect and will.” No one here can say "beyond a reasonable doubt" from real evidence (not opinion) that there is no possiblity of baptism of desire or limbo or "hope" for salvation for these little babies. We must all conform our opinions to all 3 of these being possibilities. But we can have our own opinions as to which ones are likely or unlikely.

God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa


http://www.saint-mike.org/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=473

Here is an excerpt:

Denial of Levels 3-5 below constitute varying levels of rebellion. The seriousness of the sin of rebellion differ with the situation and nature of the denial and the level of teaching.

AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING w/ assent of intellect & will

[Level 3] Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Level 3 teaching requires us to give the Church the benefit of the doubt similar to the legal concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt". If we are to question this level of teaching we must have sufficient evidence (not opinion) that beyond a reasonable doubt the Church is wrong.

EXAMPLES
• All Church teachings on faith and morals not falling into Level 1 and Level 2 categories
• teachings following from or leading to a better understanding of revelation
• moral direction derived from such teachings as proposed by the Magisterium of the Church.
• Papal Encyclicals not belonging to Level 1 or 2

If only they knew how we "cheer-lead" for each other when it comes to say, a robust discussion on predestination!

Yeah.

BTW, I'll repeat something - no, I think I'll start a new thread on that topic. Sort of a repost of my last post at our old site - the one you never responded to. Maybe you didn't see it?

Anyway, I don't have a lot of time on my hands, so I have some trepidation about opening this topic up, but . . . why not? Ok, I know you have a ton of reasons, MRyan. But I don't care. I only listen to you when you're right.

Elisa,

Seriously, what a joke calling Tornpage (of all people) a cheerleader. I remember the predestination debates, as well as several others. You were both direct, backed up your points and always ended as friends.

I learned a lot from reading both of you over the last couple years. I thank you.

The 3 of us haven’t always agreed, and we all have evolved to the point where we agree on most things now. Praise God. Most importantly, we assent with intellect and will to all the magesterium of the Church teaches, which is not the same thing as assenting with faith to infallible dogma.

Thank you, E. I learn a lot from your posts, too. I'm amazed at the wealth of material you can summon up.

One of the things MRyan and I do have in common: we both have moved from a rabid Feeneyism, and done so independently, even though the movements were parallel. I think that is a large part why we understand each other, and agree so much.

But watch what happens if the predestination debate gets going.

Lest someone doubt that I was a rabid Feeneyite: the first thread linked (now almost 11,000 hits) below was listed and linked on several pro-Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus sites rather prominently, but time buried it. A lot of material in those posts, too.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,2034733.0.html
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,2086874.0.html
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,2675818.0.html

Tornpage rote:
I know you have a ton of reasons, MRyan. But I don't care. I only listen to you when you're right.

Looks like you won't be doing much listening then.

Sorry M. Couldn't resist that.
But I mean it in the nicest possible way.

columba wrote:

Tornpage rote:
I know you have a ton of reasons, MRyan. But I don't care. I only listen to you when you're right.

Looks like you won't be doing much listening then.

Sorry M. Couldn't resist that.
But I mean it in the nicest possible way.

Oh, sure you did!

Actually; I know you meant it in the nicest possible way, and I loved it.

My wife doesn't listen to me either. Perhaps that should tell me something.

tornpage wrote:
BTW, I'll repeat something - no, I think I'll start a new thread on that topic. Sort of a repost of my last post at our old site - the one you never responded to. Maybe you didn't see it?

Ummm ... I plead the fifth.

tornpage wrote:Anyway, I don't have a lot of time on my hands, so I have some trepidation about opening this topic up, but . . . why not? Ok, I know you have a ton of reasons, MRyan. But I don't care. I only listen to you when you're right.

MRyan,

Don't worry about the predestination thing getting going too soon. It's a deep topic, and I'm preoccupied . . . so let me begin.

Just remember: 1) God doesn't love all men equally and therefore does not equally will their salvation (see my sig below); and, 2) it is "impossible" in fact (in actu) for the elect (those loved more) to resist His will (see my sig) - though they retain the possibility (in potentia) in their wills of not following His will, and thus remain free beings.

Put those two truths together and you get some tornpage dynamite, and a proper understanding of the ways of the Lord.

Go ahead while I duck.

Tornpage,

Oh, noooo. Not the "God doesn't love all men equally" thing again from last summer. lol

MRyan wrote:

cowboy wrote:
So you admit that the CCC could contain errors and is not infallible?

I repeat, I do NOT admit to beating my wife.

The CCC may in fact contain errors, but it may not, as a sure guide for teaching Catholic doctrine, contain errors that are opposed to the dogmas of the Church.

In other words, the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, as they are presented in the CCC and other magisterial documents as teachings of the authentic and ordinary Magisterium, cannot be opposed to the dogma of baptism, or any other dogma.

You're not done, I want to see the "proofs" which substantiate your reckless accusations.

Was that a yes or a no? That the CCC can contain errors?

cowboy wrote:

MRyan wrote:

cowboy wrote:
So you admit that the CCC could contain errors and is not infallible?

I repeat, I do NOT admit to beating my wife.

The CCC may in fact contain errors, but it may not, as a sure guide for teaching Catholic doctrine, contain errors that are opposed to the dogmas of the Church.

In other words, the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, as they are presented in the CCC and other magisterial documents as teachings of the authentic and ordinary Magisterium, cannot be opposed to the dogma of baptism, or any other dogma.

You're not done, I want to see the "proofs" which substantiate your reckless accusations.

Was that a yes or a no? That the CCC can contain errors?

Let us know what part of this do you not understand:

The CCC may in fact contain errors, but it may not, as a sure guide for teaching Catholic doctrine, contain errors that are opposed to the dogmas of the Church.

So it can contain errors but it is infallible in doctrinal issues? Is that what your saying?

MRyan wrote:

Are you so ignorant of Catholic teaching that you do not know the
difference between the denial of an article of faith or defined dogma
and holding an opinion at odds with a non-revealed and never defined
common doctrine that is in its essence a theological construct

I can use your quote above to apply to baptism of desire as much as you apply it to Limbo. So you have just proved my point, they are both open to being debated.

duckbill wrote:MRyan wrote:

Are you so ignorant of Catholic teaching that you do not know the
difference between the denial of an article of faith or defined dogma
and holding an opinion at odds with a non-revealed and never defined
common doctrine that is in its essence a theological construct

I can use your quote above to apply to baptism of desire as much as you apply it to Limbo. So you have just proved my point, they are both open to being debated.

No, Baptism of Desire & Blood were never, ever defined, in spite of their being widely, but not universally, held. They were not defined by either Florence or Trent. Limbo was, however, defined as being the abode of infants who die without sacramental Baptism. (See my post above on the Council of Carthage.) The particulars of Limbo have been left to theological debate.

Limbo was, however, defined as being the abode of infants who die without sacramental Baptism. (See my post above on the Council of Carthage.) The particulars of Limbo have been left to theological debate.

That sounds familiar.

It goes like this. Baptism of desire was, however, defined as a means of justification:

Council of Trent, Session VI

CHAPTER 4

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

The particulars of baptism of desire have been left to theological debate.

tornpage wrote:

Limbo was, however, defined as being the abode of infants who die without sacramental Baptism. (See my post above on the Council of Carthage.) The particulars of Limbo have been left to theological debate.

That sounds familiar.

It goes like this. Baptism of desire was, however, defined as a means of justification:

Council of Trent, Session VI

CHAPTER 4

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

The particulars of baptism of desire have been left to theological debate.

tornpage wrote:

Limbo was, however, defined as being the abode
of infants who die without sacramental Baptism. (See my post above on
the Council of Carthage.) The particulars of Limbo have been left to
theological debate.

That sounds familiar.

It goes like this. Baptism of desire was, however, defined as a means of justification:

Council of Trent, Session VI

CHAPTER 4

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By
which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is
indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a
child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of
the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And
this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

The particulars of baptism of desire have been left to theological debate.

Well, if you haven't been following the debate the point is that baptism of desire and salvation of unbaptized infants enjoy a similar status but baptism of desire people seem to think they can accept one and reject the other. They think they have it solved with a mysterious wording of Trent; and welcome with open arms the possibility of infants being saved without Baptism. Why? Not because there isn't any definitive teaching against the the possibility that infants can be saved without Baptism but because it works into their plan of de fato universal salvation.

Jehanne has a point with his quote of Carthage, which you ignored, throwing up another quote, (change the subject--typical) and its teaching was embraced by the Holy See as its own. Why don't you accept Carthage, should be the real topic between you and Jehanne. Carthage is much more definitive than CCC and some theological commission, because the Holy See embraced Carthage as its own. I suppose you accept the theological commission in the 1960's was correct by saying artificial contraception is permissible? Would I have been a "heretic" to oppose that commission, before Paul VI ruling?


Don't
say we have no right to question non definitive documents on baptism of desire; then turn around and question the absolute necessity for Baptism for infants because it wasn't "defined"( btw it was), this is hypocrisy to the max. If one is debatable both are debatable.

Duckbill,

Jehanne has a point with his quote of Carthage, which you ignored, throwing up another quote, (change the subject--typical) and its teaching was embraced by the Holy See as its own.

There is a discussion on these things going on in several different threads. I have not ignored the quote, and indeed responded to Jehanne about the quote elsewhere.

Now, ante up, and tell me where I've "rejected Carthage"? I could go on, and will eventually, but I'll call you on this and watch you fall on the sword of your baseless accusation.

SHOW ME, HERE AND NOW, WHERE I'VE "REJECTED CARTHAGE"?

Duckbill,

To avoid your quibbling, I'll be a bit more precise:

SHOW ME WHERE I "DON'T ACCEPT" CARTHAGE?

Did I say you "REJECTED" Carthage?

You ignored it.
And if you accept that there is hope for babies who are not Baptized can be saved, it would seem you reject it.

Duckbill,

Did I say you "REJECTED" Carthage?

You ignored it.

I knew you'd quibble. You said both, and I already responded to the "ignore" it bit. As to the second accusation, since you forget:

Why don't you accept Carthage, should be the real topic between you and Jehanne.

To which you respond:

if you accept that there is hope for babies who are not Baptized can be saved, it would seem you reject it.

That's a neat form of defense to a baseless accusation. You accuse someone by attributing to him the condition necessary to prove what can only be true if the condition exists, and then when you're called on it, you qualify the attribution and make the accusation into a conditional "if . . . then" statement. Is magic one of your hobbies?


Ok. Let's clear the air:

A) If I killed man without justification, I am a murderer.

B) If I slept with my neighbors wife, I am an adulterer.

C) If I reject a truth of the faith, I am a heretic.

Now that that's done:

SHOW ME WHERE I "DON'T ACCEPT" CARTHAGE!!!