The Dogma and Abortion

I came across this website today: http://www.prolifeleague.com which seems to be a relatively new website. Anyhow, they have some interesting articles regarding the dogma No Salvation Outside the Church and abortion.

From the article: "If Baptism is Necessary... what about the Holy Innocents?"

The Feast of the Holy Innocents, December 28, is doubtless the occasion for many priests to mention the crime of abortion in the course of their sermons. There are many similarities between Herod's slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and the ongoing killing of babies in the wombs of their mothers. But there is one tremendous difference. The Holy Innocents were all circumcised little Jewish boys who went to the Limbo of the Just, and on Ascension Thursday, Our Lord brought them with Him to Heaven, where they now enjoy the Beatific Vision. The babies that are being killed in today's slaughter of the holy innocents will never see the Face of God. They do not go to Heaven, but rather, a place of natural happiness, free from the torments due to willful sin.

Abortion is a crime against the natural law, but more importantly, it is also a crime against the supernatural law...

MarianLibrarian wrote:I came across this website today: http://www.prolifeleague.com which seems to be a relatively new website. Anyhow, they have some interesting articles regarding the dogma No Salvation Outside the Church and abortion.

From the article: "If Baptism is Necessary... what about the Holy Innocents?"

The Feast of the Holy Innocents, December 28, is doubtless the occasion for many priests to mention the crime of abortion in the course of their sermons. There are many similarities between Herod's slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and the ongoing killing of babies in the wombs of their mothers. But there is one tremendous difference. The Holy Innocents were all circumcised little Jewish boys who went to the Limbo of the Just, and on Ascension Thursday, Our Lord brought them with Him to Heaven, where they now enjoy the Beatific Vision. The babies that are being killed in today's slaughter of the holy innocents will never see the Face of God. They do not go to Heaven, but rather, a place of natural happiness, free from the torments due to willful sin.

Abortion is a crime against the natural law, but more importantly, it is also a crime against the supernatural law...

nice to see that sanity is starting to dawn in the pro-life movement Limbo is the answer to motivate women. I mean if a women thinks here child is being sen to "hell" Limbo, she might change her mind.
But if she thinks she is sending the baby to heaven what motivation does she have?

Oh yeah I have seen that site before. It appears that they are EENS-ers. I should probably add them to my link list.

From the site mission statement: http://www.prolifeleague.com/about-prolifeleague.html


How do we do it?

By promoting an awareness of the eternal consequences of abortion, we intend to spur new work in spiritual warfare against the diabolical attacks on unborn, un-baptized souls.

We rely on the infallible pronouncements of The One Holy, Apostolic Church to substantiate the eternal consequences of abortion. By promoting an awareness of the eternal consequences of abortion, we intend to spur new work in spiritual warfare against the diabolical attacks on unborn, un-baptized souls.

Through the Internet, we publish, promote and disseminate the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church on the following subjects:

* Original Sin
* The Absolute Necessity of Baptism for the Remission of Original Sin
* The Use of Water as the Only Valid Matter for Baptism
* The Consequences of Dying with Original Sin
* The Necessity of Belonging to the One, Holy, Apostolic Church
* The Ultimate Consequences of Abortion on the Unborn, Un-baptized Soul


We expect that this information will increase many Catholics’ awareness of the eternal consequences of abortion and lead them to increased spiritual action against the crime of abortion.

Thanks for this new forum. It looks promising!

Hi Manicipia, welcome to the forum!!

From your username I could guess who you might be , but I would just like to remind everyone of forum rules #4 and #6.

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t40-official-forum-rules-read-before-posting

Those rules are in place to ensure that we can all focus on the issues at hand EENS and not get side tracked into ad hominem...

MarianLibrarian wrote:I came across this website today: http://www.prolifeleague.com which seems to be a relatively new website. Anyhow, they have some interesting articles regarding the dogma No Salvation Outside the Church and abortion.

From the article: "If Baptism is Necessary... what about the Holy Innocents?"

The Feast of the Holy Innocents, December 28, is doubtless the occasion for many priests to mention the crime of abortion in the course of their sermons. There are many similarities between Herod's slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and the ongoing killing of babies in the wombs of their mothers. But there is one tremendous difference. The Holy Innocents were all circumcised little Jewish boys who went to the Limbo of the Just, and on Ascension Thursday, Our Lord brought them with Him to Heaven, where they now enjoy the Beatific Vision. The babies that are being killed in today's slaughter of the holy innocents will never see the Face of God. They do not go to Heaven, but rather, a place of natural happiness, free from the torments due to willful sin.

Abortion is a crime against the natural law, but more importantly, it is also a crime against the supernatural law...

Your posting this was excellent timing. I was able to leave a link to this on CCF where Duckbill and I got involved in a debate there about the fate of unbaptised infants.
Thanks for posting this.

For anybody who's interested, here are a couple of articles on this topic:

http://catholicism.org/unbaptized-infants-malone.html

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-141.html

Both concern limbo, unbaptized infants, the necessity of baptism, etc.

columba wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:I came across this website today: http://www.prolifeleague.com which seems to be a relatively new website. Anyhow, they have some interesting articles regarding the dogma No Salvation Outside the Church and abortion.

From the article: "If Baptism is Necessary... what about the Holy Innocents?"

The Feast of the Holy Innocents, December 28, is doubtless the occasion for many priests to mention the crime of abortion in the course of their sermons. There are many similarities between Herod's slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and the ongoing killing of babies in the wombs of their mothers. But there is one tremendous difference. The Holy Innocents were all circumcised little Jewish boys who went to the Limbo of the Just, and on Ascension Thursday, Our Lord brought them with Him to Heaven, where they now enjoy the Beatific Vision. The babies that are being killed in today's slaughter of the holy innocents will never see the Face of God. They do not go to Heaven, but rather, a place of natural happiness, free from the torments due to willful sin.

Abortion is a crime against the natural law, but more importantly, it is also a crime against the supernatural law...

Your posting this was excellent timing. I was able to leave a link to this on CCF where Duckbill and I got involved in a debate there about the fate of unbaptised infants.
Thanks for posting this.

No problem, I'm glad you found it handy... and hopefully they will listen.

Another problem in comparing aborted infants to the Holy Innocents is that the Holy Innocents died explicitly FOR Jesus. It's recorded in the Sacred Scriptures that Herod killed them in hopes in killing Jesus. Abortion, while an utter travesty regardless, is not so explicitly linked to Our Lord.

I find the conclusions here hard to accept... which doesn't mean they're wrong on the face of it, but I have some questions.

(1) What of miscarried children?
(2) Any child which dies before the age of reason without Baptism is surely "invincibly ignorant." While I understand that BoD and BoB cannot apply here, nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Our Lord would legalistically consign their souls to Hell without any chance for salvation. Thoughts?

And in response to DuckBill's comment -- "I mean if a women thinks here child is being sen to "hell" Limbo, she might change her mind" -- I would say that it is more likely that the woman would find it harder than ever to believe in a loving God who would allow her unborn child to suffer for eternity, and therefore reject Church teaching on anything at all. I agree that the soul of her child must be a consideration, but nevertheless.

Perhaps my emotions are getting the best of my reason here, but it is a pretty serious thing to say that there is a class of human beings who are damned with absolutely no chance of ever being saved.

Telemachus wrote:I find the conclusions here hard to accept... which doesn't mean they're wrong on the face of it, but I have some questions.

Isn't this true of the vast majority of Christian teachings?

(1) What of miscarried children?

Their fate is the same.
Personally, I favor Limbo. A place of natural bliss and happiness is perfectly merciful and just without violating the Revelation of the necessity of Baptism and the revealed teachings of the Church as regards those who die only with Original Sin on their souls.
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.” (Denzinger 464)
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.” (Denzinger 693)

(2) Any child which dies before the age of reason without Baptism is surely "invincibly ignorant." While I understand that BoD and BoB cannot apply here, nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Our Lord would legalistically consign their souls to Hell without any chance for salvation. Thoughts?

Hypothetical situations tend to make things seem more dramatic than they realistically are...
Here too I would apply the above comments on Limbo.

Perhaps my emotions are getting the best of my reason here, but it is a pretty serious thing to say that there is a class of human beings who are damned with absolutely no chance of ever being saved.

Who are we to claim anyone had "absolutely no chance of ever being saved"? We cannot know such a thing without knowing the mind of Divine Providence.

Telemachus wrote: I find it hard to believe that Our Lord would legalistically consign their souls to Hell without any chance for salvation.

Limbo is a type of "salvation" as well. Maybe God saw that if this person would have lived he or she might have fallen into mortal sin and obstinately remained there. Limbo is better than the pains of hell.

Isn't this true of the vast majority of Christian teachings?

There are grades of "hard to accept." The fate of the unborn is at the more difficult end of the scale, methinks.

Who are we to claim anyone had "absolutely no chance of ever being saved"? We cannot know such a thing without knowing the mind of Divine Providence.

I agree with this... except that such a notion doesn't seem to fit in with the conclusions which are being reached in this thread. I have been reading what is written in this thread, and others, as concluding that one must be physically Baptized in order to be saved, no exceptions. A child in the womb cannot be physically Baptized, and there are some children conceived of which we are not even aware because they are "naturally" aborted.

Limbo is a type of "salvation" as well. Maybe God saw that if this person would have lived he or she might have fallen into mortal sin and obstinately remained there. Limbo is better than the pains of hell.

I'm not disagreeing with this, but if we're going to get into "maybes," then perhaps no conclusions should be made at all concerning the fates of these unborn. Thus, I'm not sure if the group which is being linked in the OP is being prudent.

God Bless,
Tele

Telemachus wrote: I have been reading what is written in this thread, and others, as concluding that one must be physically Baptized in order to be saved, no exceptions.

Hey, what am I, chopped liver?

Telemachus wrote:
I agree with this... except that such a notion doesn't seem to fit in with the conclusions which are being reached in this thread. I have been reading what is written in this thread, and others, as concluding that one must be physically Baptized in order to be saved, no exceptions.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”


Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.

Telemachus wrote: Thus, I'm not sure if the group which is being linked in the OP is being prudent.

Which link are you referring to? The pro-life group? In what way are they not being prudent?

MRyan wrote:Hey, what am I, chopped liver?

Ha, you're one of the folks with alternative arguments! I was waiting for your input on all this, so please give it.

Which link are you referring to? The pro-life group? In what way are they not being prudent?

In the very first post: http://prolifeleague.com/articles/why-is-abortion-wrong/53-holy-innocents.html

My point on prudence: Pro-Life League says "The babies that are being killed in today's slaughter of the holy innocents will never see the Face of God"; perhaps this is not true, there seems to be counter-arguments against being able to assert this with surety; ergo, it may be imprudent to say something like this. What I want to emphasize is that it may be more prudent to say nothing at all: how can we know?

Concerning your other quotes RashaLampa, MRyan had good things to say here: https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t51-no-salvation-outside-the-church-and-invincible-ignorance. I believe you gave exactly the same quotes. Or maybe this settles it, I don't know.

OK, maybe this is what I'm missing: MarianLibrarian talks a lot about limbo. Is anybody here arguing that "without Baptism, one is not saved, but we don't know that Hell is the only alternative"?

God Bless,
Tele