Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

I appreciate your acceptance, but do not agree with your reasons. The only "sham" may be in your flawed logic, for I do not accept your "either/or" absolutes or your accusation that Molinist/Arminian scheme is a "sham".

And I appreciate that you did not accept it. I also appreciate that you have not demonstrated - not by a long shot - how the logic is "flawed." You simply pin that label on it. Too easy.

Again, here's the syllogism:

a) if God desires to save all men, he must give all men the sufficient opportunity (the necessary graces) to reach salvation;

b) God doesn’t give infants who die in infancy without baptism the sufficient opportunity or necessary graces to reach salvation; and,

c) therefore, God doesn’t desire to save all men.

Now go ahead, attack the premises or the conclusion.

Premise a) is straight from St. Alphonsus, and also is conceded by Father GL. Indeed, a "true" will to save demands and makes necessary premise a).

I look forward to the discussion.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

As you have said repeadedtly, the Church does not teach "null sets":

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

Are you saying that the "Limbo of the Children" is empty and devoid of any souls?

No, I am not saying that, and never have. If Limbo exists, it is not empty. If it does not exist, then it does not exist and unbaptized infants are either eternally punished by being deprived of the beatific vision, or they are untied to Christ in heaven. The Church now offers them the hope of salvation, without denying the common doctrine of Limbo. So the doctrine of Limbo, as a place in hell, does not change their eternal destiny - they are either saved, or they aren't.

You might as well ask me if Augustine's doctrine on eternal sense suffering for unbaptized infants, no matter how "slight", constitutes a "null set". My answer is the same.

I dispute that Saint Augustine taught "eternal sense suffering." Someone who is an expert in ancient Latin would need to adjudicate this, but the "mildest of punishments" is not necessarily the same as "punishment of fire" and/or "punishment of the senses."

Secondly, Pope Pius VI was certainly exercising his teaching authority and that of his office, wasn't he? If so, Limbo must exist, the denial of which is "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." This is why what he taught is in Denzinger's but nothing that the ITC (whom you quoted) will be, as they were just an advisory body with absolutely no Magisterial authority. I am sure that you agree with this.

Question is, "Is Limbo empty?" If so, Pope Pius VI would have been teaching the existence of a "null set," wouldn't he? And, as you have pointed out, the Church does "not teach null sets." By the way, I have come to agree with you on this point. (Narcissistic people are usually loathe to change their opinions publicly or to admit that they were wrong, but I do so here, publicly, on both counts.)

tornpage wrote:

I appreciate your acceptance, but do not agree with your reasons. The only "sham" may be in your flawed logic, for I do not accept your "either/or" absolutes or your accusation that Molinist/Arminian scheme is a "sham".

And I appreciate that you did not accept it. I also appreciate that you have not demonstrated - not by a long shot - how the logic is "flawed." You simply pin that label on it. Too easy.

Again, here's the syllogism:

a) if God desires to save all men, he must give all men the sufficient opportunity (the necessary graces) to reach salvation;

b) God doesn’t give infants who die in infancy without baptism the sufficient opportunity or necessary graces to reach salvation; and,

c) therefore, God doesn’t desire to save all men.

Now go ahead, attack the premises or the conclusion.

Premise a) is straight from St. Alphonsus, and also is conceded by Father GL. Indeed, a "true" will to save demands and makes necessary premise a).

I look forward to the discussion.

But, I agree that premise "a" is true; however, I do not agree that conclusion "c" necessarily follows if "a" does not come to fruition.

I'll say it again; the conclusion (God doesn’t desire to save all men) does not necessarily follow:

"from the premise, for God may still have a true will to save unbaptized infants, but may allow contingencies to play out in the providential natural order of time and circumstance in order to manifest His goodness in ways that redound to His glory (in ways unknown to us); that allows, in other words, through no merit or personal fault of the infant, the grace of salvation to reach them, or not.

This is a mystery, but we can say with certitude that in either case, God’s will is the same – the salvation of all men: “God wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply.” (Stl, I, Q. 23, A.4, 3)

So, if you wish to go down this road again, you can begin by responding to St. Thomas Aquinas and “God wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply.”

"[A]ll men" includes infants.

the conclusion (God doesn’t desire to save all men) does not necessarily follow:

from the premise, for God may still have a true will to save unbaptized infants, but may allow contingencies to play out in the providential natural order of time and circumstance in order to manifest His goodness in ways that redound to His glory (in ways unknown to us); that allows, in other words, through no merit or personal fault of the infant, the grace of salvation to reach them, or not.

You accept premise a) you say. Premise a), again, is:

a) if God desires to save all men, he must give all men the sufficient opportunity (the necessary graces) to reach salvation

Note, "he must give all men" the sufficient grace necessary. You say you accept that - as you must, since it is a necessary premise, as St. Alphonsus noted - backed by Father GL.

Your "may" is an evasion. Does God give the infants the sufficient grace, or not? If he does, why aren't they all saved, and why can't you just say it? It necessarily follows, since they do nothing to reject that grace, and a necessary corollary to the assertion that God has a "true" will to save all is the personal fault (responsibility) of the damned in that they are unsaved. As stated by the Synod of Quiercy:

“Almighty God wishes all men without exception to be saved [1 Tim 2:4], although not all are saved. The fact that some are saved, however, is a gift of the Saviour, while the fact that others perish is the fault of those who perish”.

Now, again, as to premise a), does God give the infants sufficient grace or not?

I gave you a syllogism which is based on a necessary major premise to the "true" will of God to save "all men" (again, not my arbitrary statement, but "necessary" as recognized by St. Alphonsus and Father GL) and asked you to respond to it.

Your response is God "may have a true will to save" the infants. What? The assertion is that He does have a true will to save all men. Are you not sure as to the infants?

We can address what St. Thomas is talking about, and it's relevance, at some other time. The question has been clearly framed, the necessary premises established.

Deal with the issue at hand.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

As you have said repeadedtly, the Church does not teach "null sets":

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

Are you saying that the "Limbo of the Children" is empty and devoid of any souls?

No, I am not saying that, and never have. If Limbo exists, it is not empty. If it does not exist, then it does not exist and unbaptized infants are either eternally punished by being deprived of the beatific vision, or they are untied to Christ in heaven. The Church now offers them the hope of salvation, without denying the common doctrine of Limbo. So the doctrine of Limbo, as a place in hell, does not change their eternal destiny - they are either saved, or they aren't.

You might as well ask me if Augustine's doctrine on eternal sense suffering for unbaptized infants, no matter how "slight", constitutes a "null set". My answer is the same.

I dispute that Saint Augustine taught "eternal sense suffering." Someone who is an expert in ancient Latin would need to adjudicate this, but the "mildest of punishments" is not necessarily the same as "punishment of fire" and/or "punishment of the senses."

I don't care if you dispute it or not, the facts are there and it is commonly acknowledged by his peers and later theologians that his teaching was exactly that of a mild sense suffering.

Jehanne wrote:Secondly, Pope Pius VI was certainly exercising his teaching authority and that of his office, wasn't he? If so, Limbo must exist, the denial of which is "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." This is why what he taught is in Denzinger's but nothing that the ITC (whom you quoted) will be, as they were just an advisory body with absolutely no Magisterial authority. I am sure that you agree with this.

Why don't you pay attention to what is actually being condemned, rather than making an assumption that the Pope infallibly declared that "Limbo must exist"?

He did no such thing and used his teaching office to condemn those who "reject" as "a Pelagian fable a Limbo 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" as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools".

What is "false" and heretical (as well as "rash, injurious to Catholic schools") is the idle talk of some middle place between heaven and hell; and what is only "rash [and] injurious to Catholic schools" is the rejection of the common teaching on Limbo exclusive of fire, not because the doctrine is part of revealed truth, for it has never been defined or made definitive, and nowhere does Pope Pius VI suggest that it is a revealed or definitive truth.

Jehanne wrote:
Question is, "Is Limbo empty?" If so, Pope Pius VI would have been teaching the existence of a "null set," wouldn't he? And, as you have pointed out, the Church does "not teach null sets." By the way, I have come to agree with you on this point. (Narcissistic people are usually loathe to change their opinions publicly or to admit that they were wrong, but I do so here, publicly, on both counts.)

Well, I'm happy that the "null set" doctrine may have gone by the wayside, just as I hope the "salvation = Limbo" thinking has been reformed as well.

And I accept your retraction of calumny, and don't really care that you call me a "pompous ass". I've been called similar things on this Forum, but always consider the source, and the fact that I can sound like one.

But, once again, you are missing the point; for whether Pope Pius VI believed that Limbo exists or not (he did not use his teaching authority to declare the immutable and irreformable fact of Limbo) is irrelevant to the two proposals he is condemning within one condemned proposition.

tornpage wrote:I gave you a syllogism which is based on a necessary major premise to the "true" will of God to save "all men" (again, not my arbitrary statement, but "necessary" as recognized by St. Alphonsus and Father GL) and asked you to respond to it.

Your response is God "may have a true will to save" the infants. What? The assertion is that He does have a true will to save all men. Are you not sure as to the infants?

We can address what St. Thomas is talking about, and it's relevance, at some other time. The question has been clearly framed, the necessary premises established.

Deal with the issue at hand.

I did deal with it, twice (and was twice ignored), by presenting the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas which goes right to the heart of my rebuttal.

Sorry if I am not going to let you dictate the terms by which I must accept the fallible logic of your conclusion which does not necessarily follow, as I have demonstrated, from the premise of God's universal salvific will.

Deal with it.

tornpage wrote:

the conclusion (God doesn’t desire to save all men) does not necessarily follow:

from the premise, for God may still have a true will to save unbaptized infants, but may allow contingencies to play out in the providential natural order of time and circumstance in order to manifest His goodness in ways that redound to His glory (in ways unknown to us); that allows, in other words, through no merit or personal fault of the infant, the grace of salvation to reach them, or not.

You accept premise a) you say. Premise a), again, is:

a) if God desires to save all men, he must give all men the sufficient opportunity (the necessary graces) to reach salvation

Note, "he must give all men" the sufficient grace necessary. You say you accept that - as you must, since it is a necessary premise, as St. Alphonsus noted - backed by Father GL.

Your "may" is an evasion. Does God give the infants the sufficient grace, or not?

If you think I am being evasive than let me amend what I said by removing "may" and by stating unequivocally that God wills the salvation of all men through His universal (antecedent) will.

Are we clear?

I thought it obvious that "may" was being used in the context you would like to frame it, that of whether God "must give all men the sufficient opportunity (the necessary graces) to reach salvation"; in other words, "to give" in my understanding is the same as saying He provides sufficient graces for salvation, but "through no merit or personal fault of the infant", the grace of salvation may or may not reach them.

So in that context where you read "given" not as an opportunity for salvation through the ordinary instrument of salvation of the Church, but as a personal gift of grace given to every infant that the infant cannot reject because he has no free will (a simple gratuitous gift of God that He must personally give to every infant), then no, I do not understand premise "a" in that context.

Mike,

I agree that Limbo was never defined. What was defined is that infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven:

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

It is absurd to say that the Council of Carthage was teaching the existence of a "null set."

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I agree that Limbo was never defined. What was defined is that infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven:

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

It is absurd to say that the Council of Carthage was teaching the existence of a "null set."

The Council of Carthage did not infallibly define that infants cannot attain salvation without the sacrament of baptism, but it did infallibly declare that those who depart this life without the grace of baptism (in the state of original sin), are lost.

Pope Zosimus did not comment on whether God might offer the grace of baptism through a means unknown to the Church (but never apart or outside the Church).

You also know that some radical Feeneyite types have taken "what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil" to necessarily and infallibly mean that unbaptized infants partake of the devil in the eternal torments of hell - so one must be careful in "assuming" more than what is actually being "infallibly defined".

You are suggesting that it has been "defined" that the Church cannot offer the hope and grace of salvation to unbaptized infants except through actual sacramental ablution.

I don't think so.

So in that context where you read "given" not as an opportunity for salvation through the ordinary instrument of salvation of the Church, but as a personal gift of grace given to every infant that the infant cannot reject because he has no free will (a simple gratuitous gift of God that He must personally give to every infant)

Talk about evasion - bring in the Calvinist straw man. The syllogism contains no terms that suggest "cannot reject" or "no free will."

Again:

a) if God desires to save all men, he must give all men the sufficient opportunity (the necessary graces) to reach salvation;

b) God doesn’t give infants who die in infancy without baptism the sufficient opportunity or necessary graces to reach salvation; and,

c) therefore, God doesn’t desire to save all men.

You have said premise a) is true. If I understand you correctly, you now say that the "sufficient opportunity" is not personal, but simply there by virtue of the existence of a Church that has the sacrament of baptism, for you say, the sufficient grace comes to the infant via "an opportunity for salvation through the ordinary instrument of salvation of the Church." Is that right?

Tell me how that opportunity came to an infant who was born in a non-Christian land prior to the advent of the Gospel to that country - say, an Aztec infant in Central America or Mexico in the 5th century who dies in infancy?

If that opportunity did not come - and it didn't - do you not see a problem with the assertion that God gives sufficient grace to all men?

God wills to save that infant but lets amoral contingencies - such as place and date of birth - or other immoral or negligent or ignorant human beings (parents who do not baptize the child either because of non-belief or whatever) prevent that "opportunity" from reaching the child?

So much for the Synod of Quiercy's "the fact that others perish is the fault of those who perish.”

The truth of the matter is if there is a "true" will to save then, as Father GL said in his book Predestination, "[w]hat is due to each one, what God refuses to nobody, is sufficient grace for salvation" (page 204-05)." If the position of a "true" will to save all men is there, the sufficient grace is "due" all men, even that 5th century Aztec infant.

You want to defend God's "true" will to save that Aztec infant because, "hey, God has this Church in Europe with the sacrament of baptism available, which can save infants who die before maturity," go right ahead.

I say that's pretty pathetic. I say that's an evasion that maintains your fiction of a "true" will to save all men, while maintaining at the same time the "necessity" of the Church and it's sacrament of baptism for infants.

That should be apparent when you consider the fate of that Aztec kid, don't you think?

And what's more, I say that's apparent and obvious based upon the very premises those who maintain it set up - and rightly - as necessary to the "true" will to save all men: the necessity of giving them personally the sufficient opportunity to enter Heaven, not some bogus opportunity that exists thousands of miles away and which is inaccessible to the individual.

That's honestly put on the table in Father GL's formulation: ""[w]hat is due to each one, what God refuses to nobody, is sufficient grace for salvation."

Tell that to the Aztec kid.

Or tell us he's saved, since he didn't reject that grace - or is personal fault irrelevant now, notwithstanding the Synod of Quiercy?

Or, third option, concede the argument.

And St. Thomas's formulation of an "antecedent will" to save is irrelevant. For you are still left with the problem of what prevents that "antecedent will" from saving that infant, and the necessary premise of God giving all sufficient grace if the will to save all men - call it "antecedent" or whatever - is "true" doesn't disappear, and the problem remains.

St. Thomas's formulation doesn't deal with the issue.

tornpage wrote:

So in that context where you read "given" not as an opportunity for salvation through the ordinary instrument of salvation of the Church, but as a personal gift of grace given to every infant that the infant cannot reject because he has no free will (a simple gratuitous gift of God that He must personally give to every infant)

Talk about evasion - bring in the Calvinist straw man. The syllogism contains no terms that suggest "cannot reject" or "no free will."

Just repeating the fallacy of your proposition as I read it in all of its narrow-minded splendor that refuses to recognize the difference between antecedent and consequent will, and then brushes it off by saying if salvific grace does not reach the infant, than God's universal will cannot be "true", let alone "sufficient".

Tornpage wrote:
Tell me how that opportunity came to an infant who was born in a non-Christian land prior to the advent of the Gospel to that country - say, an Aztec infant in Central America or Mexico in the 5th century who dies in infancy?

If that opportunity did not come - and it didn't - do you not see a problem with the assertion that God gives sufficient grace to all men?

God wills to save that infant but lets amoral contingencies - such as place and date of birth - or other immoral or negligent or ignorant human beings (parents who do not baptize the child either because of non-belief or whatever) prevent that "opportunity" from reaching the child?

"[A]moral contingencies" - you've got to be kidding.

You want me to tell you "how that opportunity came to an infant who was born in a non-Christian land prior to the advent of the Gospel to that country - say, an Aztec infant in Central America or Mexico in the 5th century who dies in infancy?"

I thought I already did, when I wrote:

"Forum members may want to bookmark the following link on the Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences of Master Peter Lombard by St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio: http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon04031.html#QUAESTIO_I

St. Bonaventure concludes, for example, that prior to the Law of Moses, 'Under the law of Nature, the unformed faith of parents probably could have been the remedy for little ones', so the theological conception for such a remedy is not new, even if it has never been officially approved by the Church."

So tell us, Tornpage, does "since the promulgation of the Gospel" mean that these same Aztec infants today cannot be saved by the supernatural grace of God through "the unformed faith of parents"?

tornpage wrote:
Or, third option, concede the argument.

Not in this lifetime.

You don't like "mysteries", do you.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I agree that Limbo was never defined. What was defined is that infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven:

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

It is absurd to say that the Council of Carthage was teaching the existence of a "null set."

The Council of Carthage did not infallibly define that infants cannot attain salvation without the sacrament of baptism, but it did infallibly declare that those who depart this life without the grace of baptism (in the state of original sin), are lost.

Pope Zosimus did not comment on whether God might offer the grace of baptism through a means unknown to the Church (but never apart or outside the Church).

You also know that some radical Feeneyite types have taken "what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil" to necessarily and infallibly mean that unbaptized infants partake of the devil in the eternal torments of hell - so one must be careful in "assuming" more than what is actually being "infallibly defined".

You are suggesting that it has been "defined" that the Church cannot offer the hope and grace of salvation to unbaptized infants except through actual sacramental ablution.

I don't think so.

So, the venerable Baltimore Catechism was in error?

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.

Mike,

That must be the weakest reply I've ever seen from you.

The faith of the parents? So this Aztec child's shot at salvation was the human sacrificing faith of his parents? Or was that the Mayans?

Either way, you get my drift.

Even putting aside the issue of what type of faith of the parents was necessary, what if the parents were unbelievers - however you want to define it?

Again, bad luck for the Aztec kid, eh?

But God wills to save him nonetheless, and provides the sufficient grace.

Wow.

Tornpage,

Sorry to jump in the middle of your conversation between you two Yutes? I know, I know whats a Yute ? I am just thankful that I am not at your higher intelligence level.

So anyways. I got the phone number for Heaven. It is 777 777 7777. You will get a recording that says. " We are sorry but God is very busy right now. If this is Tornpage calling dial 3 at which time you will hear ' Don't worry about the Aztec kid for God is God and you can not even begin to fathom My ways, My mercy and My judgement. It is beyond your earthly comprehension. Just live, love and teach the Catholic faith and treat your neighbor as yourself. Remember in God you must trust ! , and by all means do not leave a message, that is what prayers are for. '

Just live, love and teach the Catholic faith and treat your neighbor as yourself.

George,

I'm having a discussion with MRyan about something . . . as you might have noticed. That discussion has nothing to do with my or Mike's - or anyone's - salvation. It's a discussion.

If I had spent the same amount of time that it took me to engage in this discussion with MRyan at a baseball game (I would have been at a baseball game even longer), would you tell me, "just live, love and teach the Catholic faith and treat your neighbor as yourself." Anyway, I consider your comment as irrelevant as if you said it to me while I was at a baseball game.

And granted that the most important thing is to "live, love and teach the Catholic faith."

A person can do that and spend some time here discussing the universal salvific will, or baptism of desire, or the SSPX, or sedevacantism, or whatever with MRyan and whomever.

You're here . . . so I'm sure you agree.

tornpage wrote:Mike,

That must be the weakest reply I've ever seen from you.

The faith of the parents? So this Aztec child's shot at salvation was the human sacrificing faith of his parents? Or was that the Mayans?

Either way, you get my drift.

I'm glad this isn't a baseball game.

Actually, I don't get your drift; for you are drifting far from the subject. No one said that a non-formed faith of pagan parents could involve a violation of the natural law and human sacrifice.

But if that's your take away, never mind.

If my reply is weak, your logical fallacy of a God who does not have a universal will that includes the salvation of infants is even weaker.

tornpage wrote:
Even putting aside the issue of what type of faith of the parents was necessary, what if the parents were unbelievers - however you want to define it?

I don't have to "define" anything, I was just presenting the theological precedent from the testimony of real theologians.

tornpage wrote:Again, bad luck for the Aztec kid, eh?

If God will have him saved, he will be saved, and He will provide graces sufficient to ensure that end. Do you have a problem with that?

tornpage wrote:But God wills to save him nonetheless, and provides the sufficient grace.

Wow.

If His consequent will allows an infant to be deprived of the beatific vision, this does not negate His universal will that wills the salvation of all men.

But yeah, wow, a God who wills the salvation of all men, even if not all men are saved. Wow.

Jehanne wrote:
So, the venerable Baltimore Catechism was in error?

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 last first; ref. 642 -- does the Church teach anything different today? The CCC #1261 spells this out quite clearly when if closes with "All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

The ITC also confirms this where it says "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."

Reference Q. 632, the venerable and oft edited Baltimore Catechism is simply repeating the non-defined and reformable "common belief", and nowhere does the CCC or the ITC dispute the fact of the "common belief"; but this does not mean that the Church cannot reform this doctrine by offering a glimmer of "hope".

So, no, Jehanne, the Baltimore Catechism is not in "error", for it could only be in error if the matter was already settled - which it was not, and it still isn't; though there has been a development with the doctrine of "hope", while leaving the "common belief" of Limbo in tact - though the Church now prefers to emphasize "hope".

MRyan wrote:
I'm glad this isn't a baseball game.

On second thought; I take that back, for I wouldn't mind discussing the Aztec kid over a brewski, a dog and a good baseball game -- especially when Tornpage is buying.

I don't buy . . . not the beer, not the dogs, not your argument.

If God will have him saved, he will be saved, and He will provide graces sufficient to ensure that end. Do you have a problem with that?

Hmmmm. No. Actually, it sounds quite Calvinistic. It doesn't sound a bit like a will to save "all."

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
So, the venerable Baltimore Catechism was in error?

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 last first; ref. 642 -- does the Church teach anything different today? The CCC #1261 spells this out quite clearly when if closes with "All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

The ITC also confirms this where it says "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."

Reference Q. 632, the venerable and oft edited Baltimore Catechism is simply repeating the non-defined and reformable "common belief", and nowhere does the CCC or the ITC dispute the fact of the "common belief"; but this does not mean that the Church cannot reform this doctrine by offering a glimmer of "hope".

So, no, Jehanne, the Baltimore Catechism is not in "error", for it could only be in error if the matter was already settled - which it was not, and it still isn't; though there has been a development with the doctrine of "hope", while leaving the "common belief" of Limbo in tact - though the Church now prefers to emphasize "hope".

I don't think that it's a "good hope" much less a "certain one," as it is so often portrayed to be:

Asked how old the child was whom she restored to life at Lagny, she replied that it was three days old, and was brought to Lagny before the image of Our Lady; she was informed that the maidens of the town were also before the image, and she might wish to pray God and the Blessed Virgin to give life to the babe. And then she went and prayed with the other maidens, and at last life appeared in the child, which yawned thrice, and was afterwards baptized: and immediately it died and was buried in consecrated ground. Three days had passed, they said, with no sign of life in the child, which was as black as her coat. But when it yawned, the color began to return. And Jeanne was with the maidens, praying on bended knees, before Our Lady.

Asked whether it was said in the town that she had brought about the resuscitation, and that it was due to her prayers, she answered that she did not inquire about it. (Condemnation Trial of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle, Saturday, March 3rd, Sixth Session)

This is one of those "Time will tell"-type issues. My personal opinion is that will be multitudes of eternally disappointed parents, mothers, in particular, on the Last Day. Until then...

P.S. And, George, just because something is sad does not make it not true. Ultimately, "What is, is."

Jehanne,

I think that I would like to respond to the following but I need a clarification of what you are saying in your ps. remark to me.

Asked how old the child was whom she restored to life at Lagny, she replied that it was three days old, and was brought to Lagny before the image of Our Lady; she was informed that the maidens of the town were also before the image, and she might wish to pray God and the Blessed Virgin to give life to the babe. And then she went and prayed with the other maidens, and at last life appeared in the child, which yawned thrice, and was afterwards baptized: and immediately it died and was buried in consecrated ground. Three days had passed, they said, with no sign of life in the child, which was as black as her coat. But when it yawned, the color began to return. And Jeanne was with the maidens, praying on bended knees, before Our Lady.

Asked whether it was said in the town that she had brought about the resuscitation, and that it was due to her prayers, she answered that she did not inquire about it. (Condemnation Trial of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle, Saturday, March 3rd, Sixth Session)


This is one of those "Time will tell"-type issues. My personal opinion is that will be multitudes of eternally disappointed parents, mothers, in particular, on the Last Day. Until then...

P.S. And, George, just because something is sad does not make it not true. Ultimately, "What is, is."

Are you saying that multitudes of mothers will be sad for all eternity because their sons or daughters will not be with them in Heaven? I do not understand what point you are trying to make. If this is your point are you saying there is sadness in Heaven for all eternity; forever and ever without end.

George,

First of all, Brother Andre has written an excellent article on this:

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

Secondly, it is de fide that Hell (whether the Hell of Separation, which is referred to as "Limbo," or the Hell of Suffering which is just referred to as "Hell") will not be empty. Nearly all, if not virtually all, infants who die without Baptism will spend Eternity in at least the Hell of Separation. I know that Mike does not think that this has "been defined"; I do, but I am ready to "agree to disagree" on this point. Are there exceptions? Perhaps. Certainly martyrdom will allow an unbaptized infant to enter Paradise and/or through the Providence of the One and Triune God guarreentee that child's sacramental Baptism. Take your pick -- either way, that child will be in Paradise.

Virtually all children who die in their infancy are, however, not martyred, and abortion is not martyrdom, but murder, so aborted babies do not go to Heaven. As Father Harrison points out, Pope Sixtus V closed that door, as did Pope Pius XII on any "proxy by desire." So, how many other "doors" remain "open"? Other than conditional Baptism, none in my opinion.

So, will mothers in Heaven be sad that their precious infants are in Hell, at least in the Hell of Separation? I do not think so, for when they behold the infinite majesty of the Perfect One and Triune God, then they will know that even though they will be forever separated from their infants at least in some respects, they will know that such was due to the perfect justice of a Perfect Being, so there will be no sadness on their part. It would be like standing in the daytime sun and not feeling its warm and light.

Jehanne wrote:
Nearly all, if not virtually all, infants who die without Baptism will spend Eternity in at least the Hell of Separation. I know that Mike does not think that this has "been defined"; I do, but I am ready to "agree to disagree" on this point.

It has been defined that those who depart this life with the stain of original sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

But tell us where the Church ever dogmatically “defined” that “Nearly all, if not virtually all, infants who die without Baptism will spend Eternity in at least the Hell of Separation”.

The Church hasn't “defined” any such doctrine.

How can the Church “define” as a matter of Catholic faith that a quantitative “virtually all”, “nearly all”, “most”; “many” “some” or “few” will be saved?

So if a Catholic believes “many” will be saved, but not only a “few", is this a denial of a defined dogma?

Don’t be absurd.

The Church can only define that which is necessary for salvation, and not how many actually are saved. Private revelation does not rise to the level of dogmatic certitude – period.

Furthermore, if the Church has dogmatically “defined” that “virtually all, infants who die without Baptism will spend Eternity in at least the Hell of Separation”, then just come out with it and accuse the Church of teaching heresy for allowing hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

And just go ahead and proclaim that any Church that can deny a defined dogma of faith is a false Church that is NOT the guardian of the deposit of Faith.

Those are the implications of what you are saying with your “opinion”, as if whether a matter of salvation that has been dogmatically defined is a matter of debatable opinion.

None of the St. Benedict Center articles make such an assertion, and neither does Fr. Harrison.

Jehanne wrote:
Are there exceptions? Perhaps. Certainly martyrdom will allow an unbaptized infant to enter Paradise and/or through the Providence of the One and Triune God guarreentee that child's sacramental Baptism. Take your pick -- either way, that child will be in Paradise.

So, there are “exceptions” to the “virtually all” defined dogma, but not enough to change “virtually all” to a lesser quantity, or to offer hope for “virtually all”, for this has been already been “defined” as a matter of faith.

No, it hasn't; and this is not a matter of "opinion" – it is an established fact.

Jehanne wrote:
Virtually all children who die in their infancy are, however, not martyred, and abortion is not martyrdom, but murder, so aborted babies do not go to Heaven. As Father Harrison points out, Pope Sixtus V closed that door, as did Pope Pius XII on any "proxy by desire." So, how many other "doors" remain "open"? Other than conditional Baptism, none in my opinion.

Neither Pope Sixtus V nor Pius XII definitively or authoritatively “closed that door”; they simply recognizes that the Church knows of no other “door” that is open to infants; not that this common doctrine cannot be reformed or that there is not another “door” available to God outside the ordinary instrumental means of salvation.

Mike,

You can play "word games" with the Church's Magisterial statements all that you want:

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

Now, of course, you're going to come along and substitute words such as "know," "grace of," etc. to make the above statement say things which it does not say, and that's fine, go right ahead. And, yet, with all these innumerable Magisterial statements, and statements from the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church, you offer us #1261 in the CCC, which is not even listed in the section under "Heaven" in the index and ask us to believe that this single, ambiguous paragraph finally "clarifies" 2,000 years of Church teaching, and in the process, claim for it a Magisterial authority which it does not even claim for itself.

In the process, you're making the Church's immemorial teachings on the fate of infants who die without Baptism into a meaningless "null set."

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You can play "word games" with the Church's Magisterial statements all that you want:

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

So I'm the one playing "word games"?

Who is it that said there is an "exception" to the dogmatic prescription above and who said there is another remedy available to them (baptism of blood) other than the "only remedy" --the sacrament of baptism?

So you "come along and substitute words such as 'exceptions' and 'baptism of blood', etc. to make the above statement say things which it does not say, and that's fine, go right ahead."

As you yourself have said, it is pointless for the Church to have taught Baptism of Desire & Blood if, in fact, everyone who made it to Heaven, without exception, died with sacramental Baptism. What would be the point of teaching things that never, in fact, occur??? The same is true of what Saint Thomas taught:

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)

What would be the point of St. Thomas teaching this (which the Church embraced fully), if, in fact, there are no "unbaptized children...separated from God"?

Jehanne,

I have no idea what you are talking about; you have wondered off once again into "null set" incoherence, which is amply demonstrated with your citation from St. Thomas Aquinas who is referring to a natural, not a supernatural, unity with Christ. Without the supernatural bond of sanctifying grace, there can be no salvific unity, meaning, no eternal beatitude in heaven.

St. Aquinas is referring only to a natural state of happiness, without denying the eternal penalty of loss.

As I told you before, IF Limbo does not exist, then it does not exist and there can be no souls located in a place which does not exist. If it does exist (the "common belief"), then souls reside there. Neither proposition is opposed to the faith, though it would be rash and injurious to the Catholic schools to absolutely deny the existence of Limbo (which the Church does not).

So how does that constitute a "null set"? The fact the Church has not definitively settled this matter and allows both propositions is irrelevant to the fact that infants are either saved, or they suffer eternal loss. The Church allows hope for the former, while recognizing that she still does not know of another means other than Baptism that can assure their salvation.

Does the Church make an allowance for the exception of baptism of blood for infants, or doesn't she? If so, and in fact, you believe the doctrines of the Baptisms of Blood and Desire to be "de fide", are you not doing the very thing you accuse me of, that of "adding words" to the dogmatic prescription which says "the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism"?

You like to have it both ways?

Has it occurred to yet that the doctrine which recognizes that the grace and essential effects of Baptism may be supplied through the salvific efficacy of the Baptisms of Blood and Desire, and that for infants the Church recognizes that the Baptism of Blood provides for the lack of baptism, means that the dogmatic prescription of the Council of Florence must be understood in the same sense as it is understood by the Church, which today also recognizes through a development in doctrine (a point of doctrine Florence did not touch on) that God may provide a means for the salvation of infants outside the ordinary instrumental means of baptism or the extraordinary exception of baptism of blood?

The Church still does not know of another means that can assure the salvation of infants, and she teaches still today that the Baptism of infants retains its urgency, and that Baptism is still necessary for salvation - so there is no "contradiction" in doctrine.

The whole point of this little exercise was to demonstrate the fallacy of your assertion that says it has been "defined" that "Nearly all, if not virtually all, infants who die without Baptism will spend Eternity in at least the Hell of Separation"; and to point out the hypocrisy of accusing me of "adding words" to the dogmatic prescription of Florence when that is precisely what you did with your "exception" for baptism of blood.

As I suggested, you can't have it both ways, and the Church has never "defined" that because "the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism" means that the Church cannot allow for the hope of salvation for infants by an extraordinary means known to God alone; just as she allows for the exception of the Baptism of Blood.

Neither has the Church ever "defined" that “Nearly all, if not virtually all, infants who die without Baptism will spend Eternity in at least the Hell of Separation”.

You made that up.

What is at least de fide ecclesiastica is that infants who die without Baptism or martyrdom will not go to Heaven:

Nor is another's faith so valuable to an infant, as his own to an adult. For the faith of the Church does not suffice for infants without the sacrament, because, if they die without baptism, even when they are being brought to baptism, they will be damned, as is proved by many authorities of the saints; on this point let one suffice. Augustine : "Maintain firmly that infants who either begin to live in their mothers' wombs, and die there, or born of their mothers pass from this life without the sacrament of baptism, must be punished with eternal torture, because although they have no sins of their own doing, yet they have inherited original sin from their conception in carnal concupiscence." And as infants who die without baptism, are numbered with the infidels, so those who are baptized are called faithful and are not separated from the fellowship of the faithful, when the Church prays for the faithful dead. (Peter Lombard, The Sacramental System, IV. That suffering and faith and contrition take the place of baptism.)

Note Master Lombard's teachings on Baptism of Desire & Blood, which you yourself have quoted in the very section above!

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.

Are you saying that the scenario in Question 13 above never happens, ever?

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

Are you saying that no infants are ever lost?

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

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

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)

Is Saint Thomas wrong here? He states that there are "souls...in limbo"? Is he wrong?

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)

Wrong again?

Jehanne wrote:George,

First of all, Brother Andre has written an excellent article on this:

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

Br. Andre wrote:
What is dogmatic is that unbaptized infants cannot be admitted to the Beatific Vision.

It is “dogmatic” in the sense that unbaptized infants who retain the stain of original sin cannot be admitted to the Beatific Vision. Br. Andre seems to be suggesting that because the Church knows of only one remedy that can assure their salvation, then it dogmatically follows that there cannot be another remedy known to God alone that would allow the Church to offer the hope of salvation.

Once again we are faced with the heretical spectacle of an authentic teaching magisterium teaching heresy on a matter of salvation that has, allegedly, been dogmatically defined in the same sense Br. Andre understands it.

Br. Andre wrote:
The Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1445) both taught that “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” (D 464, 693).

Precisely, notice that “Baptism” is not even mentioned and where does this dogmatic prescription declare that original sin cannot be removed by a means known to God alone?

Br. Andre wrote:
The Council of Florence (the Bull Cantate Domino of February 4, 1442): “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, . . . but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently” (DS 1349).

It is absolutely and dogmatically true that “no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism”, for the Church has no other remedy at her disposal that she can bring to them; only God can bring another remedy that supplies for the lack of Baptism. It is also true that “[the sacrosanct Roman Church advises that holy baptism ought not to be [unduly] deferred . . . but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently” (DS 1349).

Br. Andre wrote:
In 385, Pope St. Siricius sent a letter to a Bishop Himerius, telling the bishop that both of their souls are in danger if they defer the baptism of infants or adults: “. . . lest our own souls be in danger if, as a result of our having denied the saving font to those who stand in need of it, each one of them, on leaving the world, should lose the kingdom as well as his life” (DS 184).

And why would Br. Andre suggest that this is no longer true when the Church suggests no such thing?

Br. Andre wrote:
Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, wrote to the Synod of Milevis, that: “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).

Yes, it would be utterly foolish to suggest such a heretical absurdity, and the Church suggests no such thing. If unbaptized infants are saved by the mercy of God (we are allowed to hope), it necessarily and infallibly follows they will not “be granted the rewards of eternal life … without the grace of baptism”; period, for all of the elect receive the grace of baptism, even if not by the ordinary instrument of sacramental ablution.

Br. Andre wrote:
Further, the teachings of the Council of Trent on justification, the Roman Catechism’s teaching on baptism, and Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to a Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (October 29, 1951) all confirm the traditional teaching that unbaptized infants cannot be saved.

No, they each confirm that the Church does not know of another remedy that can save them. And this is the same Council of Trent on justification, the same Roman Catechism’s teaching on baptism, and the same Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to a Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives that teaches the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire – a doctrine Br. Andre rejects.

Br. Andre wrote:
Johannes M. Schwarz, Ph.D., is a scholar who has surveyed the various theories of unbaptized infant salvation. In an interview by kath.net, he made some insightful remarks in favor of the traditional teaching. Here are two excerpts from that interview:

"It might be true that there are no definitory statements on the questions [Jehanne, so much for your “defined” dogma], but there is a firm tradition in the ordinary magisterium, that cannot simply be discarded [just like baptism of blood and baptism of desire – which enjoys an even greater authority and tradition]. It is insufficient to state that limbo was never defined, and therefore unbaptized children might equally be thought to be in heaven [agreed, and the Church hasn’t]. Historically 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 [quite so]. That limbo was never defined had much to do with leaving room for the Augustinian theory as a study of the Jansenist controversy helps to see. The non-salvation of children was not disputed, except for very limited exceptions (Cajetan and some others) [This might even be true, but it is conjecture. The reason why it was never defined may have more to do with the fact that Scripture and Divine Revelation are silent on the subject of Limbo, though Scripture does give supporting evidence for either position. And, once again, in either case, this does not prevent the Church from developing the reformable aspect of the doctrine, as is her right].
[...]
In my study I found that limbo is not only valid as an explanation, it also has a greater probability than most other theories and, as a model of non-salvation, a longstanding tradition with authority. I do not rejoice over the fact, that such a state could be the state of unbaptized children. But then, there are many things in this world, I find hard and difficult. I often fail to understand why God permits this or that, but I do not believe in God because he conforms to my image, but simply because God is. I trust, that how he ordains things is right, just and merciful." [The Church has absolutely no problem with this, and denies none of it; but she reserves the magisterial right to offer “hope” under her own terms -- which cannot be opposed to the Faith or to immutable tradition].

Perhaps I'll address the remainder of the article at another time.

Jehanne wrote:What is at least de fide ecclesiastica is that infants who die without Baptism or martyrdom will not go to Heaven:

Jehanne,

I can hardly believe that you can jump around like this, for it would seem that you simply cannot stay on track and do not have the capability to follow an argument.

Peter Lombard was stating the common opinion that "the faith of the Church does not suffice for infants without the sacrament", and the Church has never reversed this opinion, though she leaves the question open. The doctrine of "hope" makes no such assumption, and leaves the means of salvation and regeneration entirely in God's hands.

Lombard also cites St. Augustine's teaching which says "that infants who either begin to live in their mothers' wombs, and die there, or born of their mothers pass from this life without the sacrament of baptism, must be punished with eternal torture", a doctrine the Church no longer teaches (though you would like to argue that St. Augustine never said this).

Does that mean that St. Augustine was in "error"; no, because the doctrine has not been definitively settled, though it would be rash and injurious to the Catholic Schools to cling to Augustine's severe doctrine over that of the Church and the more common opinion; reformable as it may be.

And why should I take note of "Master Lombard's teachings on Baptism of Desire & Blood, which you yourself have quoted in the very section above!" What's your point?

The Church today does not teach anything contrary to what is taught in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. Will you also affirm this teaching:

"A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church." (Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine)

So it is still true that "Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible" ... that "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" ... and "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."

No, I am not "saying that no infants are ever lost?", and neither does the Church.

And no, St. Thomas was not "wrong" when he taught that there are "souls...in limbo"; for the simple reason that he cannot have been in error (opposed to the faith) on a non-defined doctrine. If they are in limbo, as he believed (the more common opinion), they are there solely because they lack sanctifying grace.

Mike,

Perhaps we both need to read #1261 again:

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

In some situations (such as willful and deliberate abortion), I have no hope, none whatsoever. I think that such babes are in Hell, and if asked, I would have no qualms whatsoever telling such a woman that her dead baby is not in Heaven. I believe this to be objective reality, the 2+2 = 4 type. I also believe it to be de fide ecclesiastica per all the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Councils, and Popes of the Church (note JP II's retraction on this); I am going to personally petition the Holy Father via the bishops of the SSPX to declare this as being de fide definita. I know that they are already working on these types of issues. It certainly needs to be defined. Hopefully, more priests will come over to Tradition until Rome, finally, returns to Tradition, if only to condemn the error (and many others like it) that "all infants who die without Baptism are in Heaven," which is certainly not the case.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Perhaps we both need to read #1261 again:

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

In some situations (such as willful and deliberate abortion), I have no hope, none whatsoever. I think that such babes are in Hell, and if asked, I would have no qualms whatsoever telling such a woman that her dead baby is not in Heaven.

You do not get to determine under what situations an unbaptized infant is condemned to hell. And a mother who has lost her child, whether through abortion or not, does not have to listen to some layman tell her that her child is definitively lost.

I know of no Catholic mother who has testified to having an abortion (I hear at least one testimony per year at Church) who claims to have any certainty that her child is saved (though I have heard a Catholic mother on a discussion board who lost her child through miscarriage say that she "knows" her child is in heaven - the child visits her in her dreams - and she is a sede); they place their trust in God and in the magisterial teaching authority of the Church and have the courage to hope -- and to ask our Lord that He not hold this grievous sin against them. If you ever want to know true contrition and true agony - talk to one of these woman who finally found the faith to ask for forgiveness - though the pain never leaves them.

Go ahead and tell one of these mothers that their child is in hell - and then tell them that the Catholic Church does not know what she is talking about with this doctrine of false "hope"; for she cannot be trusted in such matters of salvation, and that you have the words of eternal life and eternal damnation. After all, 2+2=4.

Talk about being a "pompous &##"!

So, Pope Sixtus V is a pompous ass???

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

And, of course, the First Vatican Council stated:

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

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

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

Jehanne,
thankfully when the Catholic Church talks of 'hope' it refers to a Divine virtue directly implanted in the soul by Almighty God, which differs greatly from the Jehanne home-baked definition of hope which in practice seems more akin to the definition of despair.

I make "no apologies" for having taken the words of Pope Sixtus V literally. Check-out the following article:

http://catholicism.org/the-limbo-of-the-infants.html

Note the editorial comments at the bottom.

Which Jehanne should I respond to? A , B or C.

Jehanne said

A. In some situations (such as willful and deliberate abortion), I have no hope, nonewhatsoever. I think that such babes are in Hell, and if asked, I would have no qualms whatsoever telling such a woman that her dead baby is not in Heaven.


Jehanne said:

B. Can angels baptize the unborn?

Sure, why not? We have already demonstrated (from Saint Thomas' teachings) that they can baptize those who have been born, as they can be in multiple places at the same time, which, according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, means that they can exist outside of time (and, by extension, outside of space.) So, it stands to reason that angels, who are not bound by time & space, can baptize the unborn.
Posted by Jehanne

C. Other/Explain


How about hope and trust in God's will?

Because Pope Sixtus V, as the Successor of Saint Peter, was promised at the First Vatican Council that the "See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error." As for angels baptizing the unborn, that's my personal opinion (as a layperson) and not the teaching of the Church, and besides, I have never claimed and have never believed that the Holy Spirit would ever allow an angel to baptize a baby as it was being murdered with the cooperation of its own mother. Such a prayer would, I believe, not be answered. It would be like someone who planned to commit mass murder in such a way that he/she could go to a priest and confess after the murders but before committing suicide. An angel baptizing, as someone being raised from the dead to be baptized, is an exceptional and unusual grace, one that is not granted "willy-nilly."

Jehanne ,



I recommend some time that you volunteer with rosary and sign in hand in front of an abortion clinic as the helpless human life is being transported to his or her imminent murder. You have the nerve to call this cooperation with the mother. So now you also are the spokesman for the Holy Spirit. You can even predict which prayers might not be answered. I can see any discussions between you and I will not bear any fruit.


[/quote]Jehanne said: I have never claimed and have never believed that the Holy Spirit would ever allow an angel to baptize a baby as it was being murdered with the cooperation of its own mother. Such a prayer would, I believe, not be answered.[quote]

Jehanne wrote:What is at least de fide ecclesiastica is that infants who die without Baptism or martyrdom will not go to Heaven:

[... snip] (Peter Lombard, The Sacramental System, IV. That suffering and faith and contrition take the place of baptism.)

Let’s revisit this fallacy so as to expose the inherent flaw with such “de fide” affirmations.

What de fide ecclesiastica and de fide definite have in common is that both refer to dogmas which have as their source divine revelation, and thus, both must be believed as having been revealed by God. The difference lies only in how the revealed truth is manifested by the Church, with the former having been proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed truth (through her infallible ordinary and universal teaching authority), and the latter having been formally defined by the pope or an ecumenical Council.

I would like Jehanne to demonstrate where the Church has ever declared “that infants who die in martyrdom will go to Heaven” is a divinely revealed truth.

He can’t, but it would be interesting to see him try.

His appeal to Master Lombard and the “authorities of the saints” does not de fide ecclesiastica make, especially when we consider that Lombard cites St. Augustine and the common doctrine of the first eight centuries which said “Maintain firmly that infants who either begin to live in their mothers' wombs, and die there, or born of their mothers pass from this life without the sacrament of baptism, must be punished with eternal torture”, which is actually a bit humorous since Jehanne disputes that “eternal torture” refers to, well, the “eternal torture” of sense suffering in the fires of hell.

Jehanne may be on slightly firmer (but still shaky) ground if he argued that the doctrine that says “infants who die without Baptism or martyrdom will not go to Heaven” is in the category of non-revealed truths that have been infallibly “proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium … insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such” which “in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth.” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei)

But even here, I would argue that the doctrine of martyrdom for infants has never been “defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or … taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a ‘sententia definitive tenenda’” that would require “Every believer … to give firm and definitive assent to these truths”.

No, I would argue that like the Baptisms of Blood and Desire, infant martyrdom belongs to the authentic ordinary teaching authority of the Church which require not the assent of faith, but submission of the mind and will, with the motive of assent being our trust and submission to the divinely appointed teaching authority of Church.

Such teachings belong, in other words, to “all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.”

Jehanne's is this same type of flawed thinking that leads him to cite Pope Sixtus V against the present Magisterium as if the Church today rejects any of the prescriptions against the “ferocious cruelty” of having willfully deprived an infant of Baptism and salvation by the only means that the Church recognizes that can assure the infant's salvation.

Such flawed thinking believes that the doctrine of “hope” is some type of an “assurance” that places an unbaptized infant on the path to salvation – so why the urgency of Baptism? Such is the nonsense from those who see themselves as “the arbiters of truth and tradition”.

It is the same flawed thinking that has Jehanne cite the First Vatican Council against the authentic ordinary Magisterium, as if the Church condemns herself for making “known some new doctrine”, which Jehanne suggest she has, and has thus been blemished with "error", rather than understanding the dogmatic prescription as it is written and as the Church understands it, meaning "the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ... that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles”, and cannot thus fail in this divine mission by having the Holy Ghost, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine.

Tell us, Jehanne, has the Church made any claim to the Holy Ghost having "revealed" to the successor of Peter a new doctrine when she teaches the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants? Or, has the Holy Ghost been promised to Peter in order to prevent any heretical new revelation from ever being proposed by the successor to Peter to the universal Church?

As a non-revealed and reformable doctrine (limbo and the status of unbaptized infants), the authority of Peter to offer “hope” falls under that same divine assistance which prevents him from "revealing" and making “known some new doctrine” and falling into manifest error on a matter of faith or morals; for the doctrine does not stand alone as some newly revealed novelty, but represents a new point of doctrine stemming from a legitimate development of an undefined and reformable aspect linked to the salvation dogmas, to which this development cannot be opposed (neither can it be opposed to immutable or irreformable tradition).

And it is precisely because Peter was granted the charism of a “never-failing faith” that we turn to him as the foundation of faith and communion – and do not judge him to be unworthy of our subjection.

However, when someone such as Jehanne believes he has the authority to determine when a traditional teaching is "de fide" (when it is not); it is only a small step to usurp for oneself the authority to dictate under what circumstances the Holy Ghost will provide the grace of salvation to an unbaptized infant, and when He will withhold it; and we know we are not dealing with your ordinary run-of-the-mill power that reserves for itself the discernment of tradition and truth against the authentic and ordinary teaching authority of the Church, but with something really special.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Our Lord promised that he would come and make His abode with those who seek and love Him, and the love of God in a certain soul cannot impel our Lord to unite Himself with that same soul unless and until the sacrament of Baptism is conferred? Since when?

Is that what “changed” since the promulgation of the Gospel?

Something definitely has changed since the promulgation of the Gospel; if not, then the promulgation of the Gospel brought nothing new that wasn't already available under the old law. To understand what has changed we need look no further than what was promulgated in that very Gospel which was; the founding of the Catholic Church, the institution of the sacraments, the necessity of rebirth though Baptism in order to enter this Church and avail of the other sacraments and by this means become eligible to share in eternal life.

My question does not imply that nothing has changed, but asks rather rhetorically whether, under the new law of grace, an act of love (circumcision of the heart) is no longer “sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of [circumcision]/baptism”.

And that, you say, is precisely the case; an “An act of love is [no longer] sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, for, you allege, our Lord has declared by intrinsic necessity that no longer can anyone be thus sanctified or saved except through material sacramental ablution; so what was possible before the promulgation of the Gospel, is no longer possible.

So not only do you posit (correctly) that something “new” (the institutional Church and the Sacraments) replaced the sacraments of the old law, but you also say (falsely) that these divinely instituted instruments of salvation are now not only the ordinary and chief means of sanctification and salvation, but, in the case of water baptism, the only means of sanctification and salvation and the only means by which an act of love can unite someone to our Lord and His Mystical Body.

That’s what you errantly say has “changed”.

Can you produce even a single magisterial or traditional corroboration by a saint, doctor or theologian in support of your novel assertion that has our Lord saying that no longer can an act of love suffice to place one into a salvific state of sanctification and unity with Him?

No, you can’t, but who needs actual magisterial and traditional corroboration when one can make it up out of whole cloth?

After all, you say, “Christ has revealed to us that ‘Unless a man be born again of water etc...’ (John 3:5) and Holy Mother Church believes this as it is written (Trent ses 6, chap 4)”.

So, Holy Mother Church, despite her magisterial and traditional teaching that says an act of love suffices for the lack of Baptism; and despite her magisterial teaching and the universal consensus of the theologians that says Trent’s “as it is written” means John 3:5 is written to corroborate that no one can be translated into justification without regeneration into Christ by the laver of regeneration, or “the desire thereof”, can be dismissed and ignored, as can her universal consensus of theologians while you pretend that they teach your rigorist false doctrine that says no one, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can be sanctified or saved without actual water Baptism.

You simply ignore the Church’s solemn admonition that says the task of giving an authentic interpretation of Scripture has been entrusted "to the living Teaching office of the Church alone," whose "authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" (Dei Verbum) and actually usurp that same authority when you suggest that the authentic interpretation has already been given via dogmatic definition, and any other interpretation that the Church presents as true, even if she says she has always held it as in the same sense as it is taught by the universal testimony of the theologians, is inauthentic, non-magisterial and false.

So says Columba.

And you simply ignore the Church and her universal consensus of the theologians on the true meaning of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4 as you provide your own novel meaning by pretending that you have any competency in such matters, even pretending at one point to have competency enough in Latin to overturn the traditional and true translation of this same passage.

For such expertise comes, apparently, with the solemn responsibility of being the arbiter of truth and tradition; and yet, the Church teaches: "in revealed matters we may fall into serious error, if we argue and deduce except under the Magisterium of the Church." (Select Treatises of St Athanasius, Vol. II, London 1920, p.92)

Of course, you cannot provide any authoritative corroboration in support of your novel theory, while the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius XII, which teaching reflects the Church’s true understanding of Trent on Justification by “the desire thereof”, enjoys not only magisterial support, but the universal moral consensus of theologians -- and affirmation by the greatest doctors of the Church.

And you cannot escape that little irrefutable fact, though you seem desperate to try and invert the truth at every turn.

Columba wrote:
Yes. This is what is meant and this is what the Church actually teaches infallibly. If you want me to sound Protestant then I can do so by inverting the order of authoritative teaching and subjecting the infallible dogmatic truths of the faith to the those non-infallible speculative teachings which have yet to be promulgated as binding on all the faithful.

No, I want you to sound Catholic. You sound Protestant simply by applying your private interpretation to the words of our Lord in John 3:5 and by dictating to the Church that she has always understood His words to positively preclude anyone from being justified by “the desire thereof”, despite the incontrovertible fact that there is only one divinely appointed and authorized interpreter of Sacred Scripture, who also happens to be on magisterial record as having declared that under the new law of grace not only can an act of love (rooted in the “desire thereof”) translate a soul to justification (sanctifying grace), but this same Authority “has always held the firm conviction” that this same “act of love is sufficient for the adult to … supply the lack of baptism”.

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII points to the Magisterium as the final arbiter where the interpretation of the divine Revelation is involved:

They judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth" (AAS 42 (1950) 568-569).

But, you would have us believe that the Church has a double-mind with respect to the true interpretation of John 3:5 and Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, and can only be trusted as the divinely “appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth" in so far as she rejects any magisterial interpretation of these solemn texts that suggests that for adults an act of love is sufficient for the lack of Baptism; for this, you say, is a false teaching, even if it enjoys universal approbation and is taught by the authentic, living and ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Simply call it “theological speculation” and it all goes away as some errant figment of the Church’s imagination.

You are actually accusing the Catholic Church of “inverting the order of authoritative teaching and subjecting the infallible dogmatic truths of the faith to those non-infallible speculative teachings which have yet to be promulgated as binding on all the faithful” when it is your private interpretation of infallible dogmatic truths that you say the Church has already bound the faithful, rendering her magisterial teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire as false “speculative teachings” that are opposed to these same dogmatic truths.

In other words, you have rejected an entire tradition of the saints, doctors and theologians, as well as the authentic ordinary magisterium of the Church, as teaching a false doctrine without censure for century after century; all the while teaching these “false” common doctrines in the theological Schools, in Scripture Commentary (e.g., Douay and Rheims), in universal Roman Catechisms, in local Catechisms (to include that of Pope St. Pius X), in Papal Letters and a Papal Allocution, in the official Letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in the Doctrinal Commentary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law, in a solemn Ecumenical Council and in the universal consensus of Bishops in union with the Pope (and even those who are not in union with the Pope).

You would have us believe, for example, that the same Pope Leo XIII who cites the Summa of the “Angelic Doctor” no less that nine times in the nine paragraphs containing the doctrinal content of Divinum Illud Munus (paragraphs 3-11), and no less that four times in the section titled The Holy Ghost in the Souls of the Just, rejected the teachings of the Angelic Doctor within the same Summa on the Holy Ghost in the souls of the Just with respect to baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

For example, in the section titled The Holy Ghost in the Souls of the Just, Pope Leo XIII declared:

We have said that the Holy Ghost gives Himself: "the charity of God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us" (Rom. v., 5). For He not only brings to us His divine gifts, but is the Author of them and is Himself the supreme Gift, who, proceeding from the mutual love of the Father and the Son, is justly believed to be and is called "Gift of God most High." To show the nature and efficacy of this gift it is well to recall the explanation given by the doctors of the Church of the words of Holy Scripture They say that God is present and exists in all things, "by His power, in so far as all things are subject to His power; by His presence, inasmuch as all things are naked and open to His eyes; by His essence, inasmuch as he is present to all as the cause of their being." (St. Th. Ia, q. viii., a. 3).

Yes, “it is well to recall the explanation given by the doctors of the Church of the words of Holy Scripture” that goes like this:

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. (Stl, III, Q. 66, Article 11)

It “is also well to recall the explanation given by the doctors of the Church of the words of Holy Scripture” that go like this:

[T]he shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Come now, columba, shall you tell us that Pope Leo XIII, in his sublime and authoritative Encyclical On the Holy Spirit where he cited the Angelic Doctor throughout, would have us reject the teaching of the Angelic Doctor on the movement and operation of the Holy Ghost in the souls of the Just when he teaches with Pope Pius XII and tradition that an act of love suffices for the lack of Baptism?

And this, the same Pope Leo XIII who said of the Angelic Doctor:

[T]to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."

22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

23. A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man-namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony.

31. […]Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors. But, lest the false for the true or the corrupt for the pure be drunk in, be ye watchful that the doctrine of Thomas be drawn from his own fountains, or at least from those rivulets which, derived from the very fount, have thus far flowed, according to the established agreement of learned men, pure and clear; be careful to guard the minds of youth from those which are said to flow thence, but in reality are gathered from strange and unwholesome streams.(Aeterni Patrisi, 1879)

And if columba could only take away the teaching of Thomas Aquinas on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, he “could easily battle with all Catholic teachers” and “gain the victory” of imposing his private interpretation on the Church.

Columba, let me pause here, its time for your medication.

Hi Mike,

I haven't forgotten that I need to respond to your posts. I will do so when I can steal some time away from other more mundane chores.
For now I will just say that I DO believe that a person can be saved by an act of love; and I believe that this act of (supernatural) love becomes possible through the sacrament of Baptism. What you maintain is that Baptism makes this act easier as opposed to possible.
You ask me to bring forth proof from theologians and Doctors that support my belief. I could ask you the same. Can you show me where the Church has ever recognized any individual as being saved (indisputabily so) apart from Baptism? The Church says that for an adult a perfect act of charity could suffice for lack of Baptsm. I agree.

"'He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself in him...we will come to him and make our abode with him.' (John 14:21-23)
'God is charity and he that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him.'[I John, IV, 16] The effect of this charity - such would seem to be God's law - is to compel Him to enter into our loving hearts to return love for love, as He said: 'If anyone love me..., my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him.' [John, XIV, 23] Charity then, more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ.” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, #73)

“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [‘Supernatural life’] and to supply the lack of baptism” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to mid wives)

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches an act of love ('forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins') is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and “takes the place of Baptism”;

“Charity is that with which no man is lost, and without which no man is saved.” ~ (Saint Robert Bellarmine)

“Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism" (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).

Columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
Pope Pius XII, following tradition and Church teaching, said in very clear and unambiguous words that an act of love suffices for the LACK OF the sacrament of Baptism and places one in a state of salvific sanctification, which is absolutely essential for salvation; for without sanctifying grace, the end (eternal beatitude) cannot be.

Show me where I disagreed with this?

You argue that an act of love is not possible without the sacrament of Baptism, rendering the words of Pope Pius XII contradictory and absolutely meaningless.

Columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
But you would actually have us believe that Pope Pius XII actually meant to say that this same act of love WOULD suffice for the LACK OF water Baptism IF it were actually possible; which of course, it is NOT possible, you say, without first having received the Sacrament.

I made the point that Christ said it were not possible and His Church of course agrees as He and His Church are one.

You don't agree? Well then you have the problem, not me.

Sure I do.

You said: “Pope Pius XII didn't in fact articulate anything. He made a statement without any articulation as to how it is to be understood, therefore we understand it as the Church has always understood it.”

And that is the insane world in which you live, where the clear teaching of the Church and her doctors, saints and theologians is precisely that which was articulated by Pope Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and 10 other doctors of the Church, and that which was articulated with unanimous consent by the theologians is NOT the understanding of the Church as she has always understood it.

But, Columba can’t seem to show us where our Lord or the Church said that an act of love is not possible without having received the sacrament of baptism.

But, that’s my problem, not his.

Hi Mike,

I haven't forgotten that I need to respond to your posts. I will do so when I can steal some time away from other more mundane chores.
For now I will just say that I DO believe that a person can be saved by an act of love; and I believe that this act of (supernatural) love becomes possible through the sacrament of Baptism. What you maintain is that Baptism makes this act easier as opposed to possible.

And you maintain that without Baptism an act of love is impossible. You are saying charity vivifies faith, but then errantly tell us that no one can have charity unless he has already received the Sacrament of Baptism, as if an act of love that compels God to unite Himself with a soul in the bond of charity is impossible without charity first being infused in the soul by the instrumental and divinely instituted means of water baptism.

Of course, neither the Church nor her doctors and theologians have ever taught any such novelty; you simply made it up; just as you made up your novel interpretation of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4 which you say holds “as it is written” to mean that a translation to justification by “the desire for it” necessitates that one must first be born again in water before a desire for Baptism (faith, charity and intention) can translate a soul to a state of sanctifying grace, rather than accepting the true understanding of the Church which holds the dogmatic passage to mean that no one can be justified without being born again in Christ (“as it is written”) in the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it.

And where is your “indisputable” proof for your novel interpretation? It is nowhere to be found except in your private interpretation that you share in common with the Protestant Bishop M’llvane, but is not shared with a single Father, pope, doctor or saint.

The Council of Trent teaches that justification is not possible "without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same" (sine lavacro regenerationis aut cius voto).

In fact, you suggest, the authoritative, living and ordinary Magisterium is not the sole authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture, you are; and jump through irrational hoops to tell us the Church has always understood John 3:5 to mean that “An act of love is [in]sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, but that this little allegedly infallibly defined dogmatic fact seems to have escaped the notice of all of the Church’s theologians and her greatest Doctors, as well as her authentic magisterium and the likes of Pope Pius XII who, you say, did not adequately “articulate” that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; why, it’s all so ambiguous and could mean that he actually had the double-mind to say “if an act of love were actually possible, which it is not, but I like to articulate this teaching of the Doctors and theologians in an official Allocution because I am very confused and don’t really know what I am talking about – and neither do the doctors”.

Of course, the universal testimony of the doctors and theologians, as well as the authentic magisterial teachings of Catechisms, the official teachings of the Holy Office, a Vatican Council, Canon Law, etc. etc, can also be dismissed as the “fallible” errant speculative musings of a Church which simply got it all wrong practically from day one when St. Cyprian first articulated that an act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism, as the Church continues to teach the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire in age after age as if she has always held them with firm conviction, and as if they were actually true and not at all opposed to her own salvation dogmas.

For example, early in this thread you said: “But can an adult make a perfect act of love while still being held in bondage by the devil, as a yet unregenerated man, still requiring the laver of regeneration (i.e, the waters of Baptism) of which no other means is known to the Church by which he can be sanctified bar sacramental Baptism?”

This is what I mean by just making it up, for the Church’s own Roman Catechism from the Council of Trent teaches that “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Is this just one more example of the Church’s poorly articulated teachings that does not necessarily mean what it says? Did the Catechism Commission, the Council Fathers and Pope Pius V really mean to say that when it is impossible to receive water baptism, the repentance for past sins (an act of love) and the proper intentions will avail one to a state of sanctifying grace, or did they really mean to say this would be true if a sincere repentance (an act of love) were possible in the souls of the impious, which of course, it isn’t since, you say, “no other means is known to the Church by which he can be sanctified bar sacramental Baptism”?

As I said, you simply make it up as you go, and never mind what the Church and tradition (by magisterial affirmation and universal consensus) actually teaches. So when the Church teaches that Baptism may in fact be impossible to receive, you tell the Church that Baptism is never impossible to receive; and when the Church teaches that an act of true charity is possible without Baptism, you tell the Church that an act of true charity is impossible without Baptism, so at least you’re consistent. You then try and sell us on the idea that the Church’s “true understanding” of these same doctrines is the opposite of what is actually articulated by the Church in age after age, and is the opposite of that which is taught by at least 13 Doctors of the Church (without a single dissenting voice) and by all of her theologians.

Your propensity for defending Protestants against Catholic theologians who correct the false interpretations of Catholic teachings is most revealing. You actually accused the Secretary General to VCI, Bishop Fessler, of being “arrogant” in his reply to the Professor Schulte for the latter’s audacity in attributing papal infallibility to papal disciplinary decrees such as “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”, and in doing so, you revealed your disagreement with Pope Pius IX who esteemed the work of Bishop Fessler as:

“a very opportune and useful thing to have beaten back the audacity of Professor Schulte, inciting as he does the secular powers against the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. For it is a matter the true meaning of which, no all men, and especially not all laymen, have a thoroughly clear understanding of, and the truth, when lucidly set forth, is wont to expel from properly constituted minds opinions which men perhaps have drunk in with their mother’s milk, to confirm others in a right mind, and fortify them against insidious attacks.

I bring this up for we saw the same criticism at work against Bishop Kenrick for having the “arrogance” to correct the Protestant Bishop M'llvaine who:

admits in a note that we "deny not salvation to such as have desired Baptism"; and attempts to prove it inconsistent with our principles, which he misstates, whilst in the text he alledges that the Council of Trent declared that no one was ever justified without the actual reception of baptism: "It is," he says, "notoriously the doctrine of the Trent Decrees that Baptism is the only instrumental cause' of justification; so absolutely necessary thereto, that without it justification is obtained by none." This is rendered the more remarkable by his quoting in the note these words as of the Council: "Instrumental causa” Sacramentum baptismi sine quo nulli unquam justificatio contingit. Concil. Trident. Sess. vi." Were the decrees of the Council before him when he made this quotation, it would be impossible to excuse him from the disgrace of having mutilated and corrupted the text, to suit his purpose: but of this I willingly acquit him, being persuaded that he took the quotation at second hand. The text runs thus: "Instrumental item, sacramentum baptismi, quod est sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli unquam contigit justificatio." "The sacrament of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no one ever was justified, is the instrumental cause." The necessity of faith in adults is declared, in conformity with the teaching of the Apostle, that "without faith it is impossible to please God." No mention whatsoever of the necessity of Baptism is made in this passage; and yet Bishop M'llvaine makes it the foundation of an argument to which he frequently reverts! (The Catholic Doctrine on Justification Explained and Vindicated by the Right Rev. Francis Patrick Kenrick, Bishop of Arath, and Coadjutor of the Bishop of Philadelphia, 1841, p. 133)

Most revealing, indeed.

columba wrote:
You ask me to bring forth proof from theologians and Doctors that support my belief. I could ask you the same. Can you show me where the Church has ever recognized any individual as being saved (indisputabily so) apart from Baptism? The Church says that for an adult a perfect act of charity [color]could[/color] suffice for lack of Baptsm. I agree [if it were in fact possible, which, you hold that the Church teaches that it is NOT possible]

No, the Church teaches that “An act of love IS sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [‘Supernatural life’] and to supply the lack of baptism”, so rather than respond to my question, which we all know you can’t answer because there is not a single saint, theologian, pope or doctor who ever taught that “An act of love is [in]sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, you think you can turn this around by asking for the “indisputable” proof demonstrating where the Church has ever recognized any individual as having been saved apart from [water] Baptism, as if the authentic universal teaching of the Church on the truth of the salvific sufficiency of an act of love is dependent upon “proof” that there are such souls in heaven.

Notice too how you framed the question, as if the Church’s teaching that is held by a universal consensus of theologians and is reflected in her own Liturgical texts (amply demonstrating her belief that certain of the martyrs received their reward through a baptism of blood before they could receive the sacrament) is not “indisputable” proof, as is if the universal teaching of the Church and her theologians on matter of salvation can be in error because it has not been “defined”; thus, such definitive “indisputable” proof is necessary before the truth of the doctrine that she holds and teaches (that an act of love is sufficient for the lack of baptism) can be recognized as true.

The only “proof” we need is the indisputable proof of the authentic teaching itself, which we have in spades from tradition and the magisterium – the latter of which is the indisputable voice of Christ. We believe because “He who hears you, hears Me” and because, as the Church and Holy Scripture teach, perfect love possesses justifying power: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." (Luke 7, 47); "He that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father: and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." (John 14, 21) and "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23, 43)

Of course, you would have us believe that in the last example an act of love was still possible for St. Dismas because the Gospel was not yet officially promulgated – no; the living Gospel was simply nailed to a Cross besides Dismas whose act of love would not have been possible without water baptism if that magic singular date for the new law to take effect already had come to pass.

You would have us believe that St. Dismas was saved by a faith vivified by charity, but a non-baptized convert and martyr who died for his new-found Faith one day after Pentecost could not have made such an act Faith vivified by charity, at least not one efficacious for sanctification and salvation. That’s what the New Law and our Lord declares – according to the novel, corrupted and Pharisaical doctrine of columba.

But that’s not what the Church teaches. Here are a few examples of the truth from the universal and unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Doctors:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor): “If a person refuses Baptism, he does not gain salvation excepting only the holy Martyrs who gain the kingdom without water.”

St. Cyprian: “Let them know…that the catechumens are not deprived of Baptism, since they are baptized with the most glorious and supreme Baptism of blood,” and also “No doubt men can be baptized without water, in the Holy Ghost, as you observe that these were baptized, before they were baptized with water…since they received the grace of the New Covenant before the bath, which they reached later.”

Tertullian: “We have indeed likewise a second font, itself one [with the former], of blood to wit”

St. Basil the Great (Doctor): “And ere now there have been some who in their championship of the true religion have undergone the death for Christ’s sake, not in mere similitude [ie. in the sacrament of baptism; cf. Rom. 6], but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. This I write not to disparage the baptism by water.” (On the Spirit, 36); and “The fortieth martyr [of Sebaste] was baptized in Christ, not by another, but by his own faith; not in water, but in his own blood.”

St. Jerome (Doctor): “The One Baptism is also in water, in the Spirit and in the fire. Of which Our Lord also says: ‘I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized’ (Lk. 12:50) and elsewhere ‘with the baptism wherewith I am baptized you shall be baptized’ (Mk. 10:39.)”

St. John Chrysostom (Doctor): “As those baptized in water, so also those who suffer martyrdom are washed clean, [the latter] in their own blood.”

St. Augustine (Doctor): “To all those who die confessing Christ, even though they have not received the laver of regeneration, [martyrdom] will prove as effective for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the baptismal font,” also “Not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what is wanting in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism for want of time.”

St. Fulgentius: “No one save those who have shed their blood, without Baptism but in the Catholic Church, can without Baptism enter the kingdom of heaven, or obtain eternal life…For…he will not have that salvation which is the virtue of the Sacrament if he receives the Sacrament itself outside the Catholic Church,”

St. Prosper of Aquitane: “They who without even having received the laver of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them as much for the doing away of sins as if they were washed in the font of Baptism,”

Pope St. Leo the Great: “Those whom the wicked king removed from this world [the Holy Innocents] were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood,” (In Epiph, I, 3; “The Sacraments,” Pohle and Preuss, Bk. 1).

Hugh of St. Victor: Some say that it is impossible that anyone should have faith and charity and yet die without baptism, for, as they say, God would not permit them to die without baptism. But, it seems to me, that since they are not counselors of God, it is foolish and presumptuous [stultum et temerarium] for them to affirm this.

St. Bernard (Doctor): “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity...” and “What is clearer than that the will is taken for the act, when the act is excluded by necessity?"

ST. ALBERT THE GREAT (Doctor): “St. Albert the Great says that the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire can only be called baptism when water baptism is lacking”. (Fr. Laisney; Opera Omnia, Vol. XXVI, pp.35-40: Tract. III, De Baptismo, Q.I, art.7)

St. Bonaventure (Doctor): “The reason why [martyrdom] has greater efficacy [than Baptism] is that in the Baptism of blood there is an ampler and fuller imitation and profession of the Passion of Christ than in the Baptism of water…In the Baptism of water death is signified; in the Baptism of blood, it is incurred,”

St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor): "We should say, therefore, that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for everyone, and it must be really received, because without it no one is born again into life. And so it is necessary that it be received in reality, or by desire in the case of those who are prevented from the former. For if the contempt within a person excludes a baptism by water, then neither a baptism of desire nor of blood will benefit him for eternal life."

St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor): “Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism"

St. Alphonsus Liguori (Doctor): “So then, he that in reality has not received Baptism cannot reach heaven? To this I reply, that he also can be saved if he has conceived an ardent desire to be baptized, and believes in Jesus Christ, as happened to many, who, unable to receive Baptism, supplied its place by their desires.”

This same doctrine (that an act of love is sufficient for the lack of baptism - Pope Pius XII) is taught in the Sentences of Peter Lombard (12th century); by Pope Innocent III (early 13th century); in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century), The Council of Trent, Session VI (1547); The (Roman) Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566); the Official Rheims New Testament with Annotations (1582); De Fide Theologica by Francisco Suarez (1621); the Douay Catechism (1649); Theologia Moralis, Book 6, by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1845), Rev. Joseph Deharbe’s Catechism (1847, published in at least 20 countries); The Mysteries of Christianity by Matthias Joseph Scheeben (1865); The Sincere Christian by Bishop George Hay (1873); God the Teacher of Mankind: Grace and the Sacraments by Fr. Michael Mueller (1877); The Flanders Catechism by Rev. Deharbe (1877); Abridged Course of Religious Instruction for the Use of Catholic Colleges and Schools by Rev. F. X. Schouppe (c. 1880); The Baltimore Catechism[s] (1885-1960’s); De Ecclesia Christi by Johann Baptist Franzelin (1887); Outlines of Dogmatic Theology by Sylvester J. Hunter (1894); Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae by Adolphe Tanquerey, Vol 3 (1895); Manual of Dogmatic Theology by Wilhelm & Scannell (1898); The Catechism Explained by Rev. Francis Spirago (1899); Doctrinal and Scriptural Catechism by Rev. P. Collot, Doctor of the Sorbonne (1904); The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (1908); The Catholic Encyclopedia by G. H. Joyce (1908); A Textual Concordance of The Holy Scriptures by Thomas David Williams (1908); De Ecclesia Christiby Cardinal Billot (1909); Dogmatic Theology by G. Van Noort (1911); The Church by G.H. Joyce, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913); The Sacraments - A Dogmatic Treatise by Pohle-Preuss (1917); Catholic Religion by Rev. Charles Alfred Martin (1918); the Catechism of the Summa Theologica (1922); De Revelatione by Garrigou-Lagrange (1925); The New Catholic Dictionary (1929); The Catholic Catechism by Peter Cardinal Gasparri based upon the Roman Catechism (1932); The Nature of the Mystical Body by Ernest Mura (1936); American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 110 (1944) and The Catholic Church and Salvation by Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1958); A Catholic Dictionary by Donald Attwater (1946); My Catholic Faith by Most Reverend Louis LaRavoire Morrow (1949); Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott (1952); Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae by J. M. Hervé (1952); Church of the Word Incarnate by Cardinal Journet (1955); Sacramental Theology - A Textbook for Advanced Studies by Clarence McAuliffe (1958); The Second Vatican Council (1965), The [Roman] Catechism of the Catholic Church (1983, 1997); the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2005), and in innumerable local Catechisms and other theological commentaries and manuals.

But, as Columba suggests, what is their universal testimony, and the Church's magisterial affirmation, against the singular testimony of the true arbiter of truth and tradition - Columba?

After all, "Christ said it [an act of love] were not possible [without Baptism; and cannot supply for the lack of baptism even if it were possible] and His Church of course agrees as He and His Church are one."

Right.

MRyan wrote:
But, as Columba suggests, what is their universal testimony, and the Church's magisterial affirmation, against the singular testimony of the true arbiter of truth and tradition - Columba?

After all, "Christ said it [an act of love] were not possible [without Baptism; and cannot supply for the lack of baptism even if it were possible] and His Church of course agrees as He and His Church are one."

Right.

Yes, Columba, I know the game you are playing. You will say once again that you do not deny that an act of love supplies for the lack of baptism, but only that an act of love is impossible without sacramental Baptism. It is a difference without a distinction, for either way it renders the words of Pope Pius XII and the testimony of the ordinary Magisterium and that of the universal consensus of Doctors, saints and theologians absolutely meaningless and contradictory – for the end result is the same – an act of love that can supply for the lack of Baptism does not exist.

And you place these heterodox words in the mouth of our Lord and in opposition to His Church, while pretending that the Church's teaches your heterodoxy – which is such a gross distortion of the truth that I do not hesitate to call it a lie, pure and simple.

Mike,

Speaking of that Pius XII quote, Father Hardon notes its cumulative effect when taken with other statements of the Magisterium:

Baptism of Water. This is the ordinary way for the justification of infants. Is it the only way (apart from martyrdom or baptism of blood)? Theologians commonly say, Yes, and add that this is theologically certain. Their arguments are very strong. They cite: 1) the Council of Florence: “they cannot be helped by any remedy but the sacrament of baptism;” 2) the Roman Catechism: “infants have no other manner of reaching salvation, if baptism is not administered to them” (p. II c. II. N. 34); 3) the Council of Cologne: “adults who are prevented from actually receiving baptism can be saved by the desire of it. But infants… since they are incapable of this desire, are excluded from heavenly kingdom, if they die without being reborn through baptism” (Coll. Lac. V, 320); 4) Pope Pius XII: “an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant this way is not open” (AAS: XLIII (1951) p. 84). These arguments, in their cumulative force seem inescapable.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_002.htm#02

As to the use of Baptism of Blood for aborted babies - putting that issue aside for now - that doesn't much help other infants who simply die in infancy without baptism. Or are they all "martyrs" simply through death? Is that the next argument?

Inside joke: it feels good to have the lungs full of oxygen . . . to be "home."

tornpage wrote:
As to the use of Baptism of Blood for aborted babies - putting that issue aside for now - that doesn't much help other infants who simply die in infancy without baptism. Or are they all "martyrs" simply through death? Is that the next argument?

Not at all; but the "way of salvation" possibly open to each have much in common, e.g., both are subject to the sanctifying work of God, but by various means (and in the same way that the Baptisms of blood and desire are similar, but are not identical).

Extracts taken from Abortion and Martyrdom edited by Aidan Nichols, O.P.:

Appendix: Sources in the Magisterium and St Thomas by John F. McCarthy

From the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas

"The opening prayer of the funeral Mass of a child who died before Baptism says rather cautiously: 'Lord, listen to the prayers of this family that has faith in you. In their sorrow at the death of this child, may they find hope in your infinite mercy.' There is here no mention of eternal beatitude in Heaven, but there is a mention of the Christian faith and Christian hope of others in relation to the deceased child. The point I am making here is that, if there may be a way of salvation for children in general who have died without Baptism, how much more may there be a way of salvation for children who have been killed before they could have made any act of the will that might hinder their call to Heaven.

"In the present study we are examining whether aborted infants might be sanctified by something equivalent to Baptism of desire at the moment of their death. We are not so much questioning whether some deceased children go to the Limbo of Children as we are suggesting that aborted children do not go there.

"Pope Pius XII touched on this matter when he wrote: 'Under the present economy there is no other way of giving this [supernatural] life to the child who is still without the use of reason ... In the case of a grown-up person, an act of love may suffice for obtaining sanctifying grace and making up for the lack of Baptism. To the child still unborn or the child just born this path is not open.' [4]

"Pope Pius XII is here proposing that, 'under the present economy' of the visible Church, infants are unable of themselves to supply for the lack of the sacrament of Baptism, but he is not denying that they could be sanctified in some way outside of this economy by a direct intervention of divine grace or through Baptism of blood.

"Yet it could be objected that babies who die in their mothers' wombs can never be born again, and so they will not rise again. St Thomas replies:

We are born again by the grace of Christ that is given to us, but we rise again by the grace of Christ whereby it came about that he took our nature, since it is by this that we are conformed to him in natural things. Hence, those who die in their mother's womb, although they are not born again by receiving grace, will nevertheless rise again on account of the conformity of their nature with him, which conformity they acquired by attaining to the perfection of the human species.

"From these quotations we see that St Thomas does visualize little children, and even those who die in the womb, as condemned to the loss of Heaven, and he states that children who die in the womb 'are not born again by receiving grace'. The direction that St Thomas takes in these statements is significant. Whereas he begins with the principle that everyone should receive punishment or reward according to his merits, and children according to the merits of others, he reaches his conclusions on the punishment of little children from the demerits of Adam, rather than arguing to the reward of little children because of the merits of Christ. It was the strongly pessimistic theological tradition of St Thomas's time that seems to have disposed him to take for granted that aborted children die in original sin, but the outlook of today is far more positive and open to the hope of their salvation.

"And what St Thomas says in the citations that will be given below seems to provide a foundation for the belief that aborted babies are granted the grace of salvation.

"Regarding babies in the womb: 'Children in their mothers' wombs cannot be subjected to the actions of humans in such a way that through their ministry they may receive the sacraments of salvation. But they can be subject to the work of God, in whose presence they live, that by a privilege of grace they may obtain sanctification, as is evident from those who have been sanctified in the womb'. [63]

According to St Thomas, 'Sanctification in the womb is Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) .' [64]

"How can babies be baptized, when they cannot intend to be baptized? St Thomas points out that

as children in their mothers' wombs do not receive nourishment by themselves, but are sustained by the nourishment of their mother, so also children not having the use of reason, being, as it were, in the womb of Mother Church, receive salvation by an act of the Church.... And, for the same reason, they can be said to be intending, not by an act of their own intention, since they sometimes resist and cry, but by the act of those by whom they are being offered. [78]

"Can little babies have faith or a good conscience without having the use of reason?

A little child believes through others, not by himself, and so he is questioned, not himself [directly] but through others, and those questioned confess the faith of the Church in the person of the child, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of faith. But the child acquires a good conscience even in himself, not, to be sure, in act, but in disposition (habitu) through sanctifying grace. [79]

"In the Church of the Saviour, as Augustine says [80], 'Little children are presented to receive spiritual grace, not so much by those in whose hands they are carried, although also by them, if they too are good believers, as by the entire company of the saints and of the faithful.'

"And thus St Thomas is led to say in a passage rich with implications: 'the faith of one [person], indeed of the whole Church, benefits the little child through the working of the Holy Spirit, who unites the Church and communicates the good things of one [individual] to another.' [81] In fact, he avers, 'The prayers which are said in the administration of the sacraments are offered to God, not on the part of the individual person, but on the part of the entire Church.' [82] Consequently, 'Children believe, not by their own act, but by the faith of the Church, which is imparted to them. And, by dint of this faith, grace and the virtues are conferred upon them.' [83]

Furthermore, 'since children are baptized, not in their own faith but in the faith of the Church, they are all equally disposed towards Baptism, and they all receive an equal effect in Baptism.' [84] Hence, it does not really matter what the intention is of those who are carrying them. [85]"

Btw, Tornpage, I am confident that Fr. Hardon would agree with the reasons for hope regarding the possible salvation of unbaptized children, especially considering his favorable comments towards the CCC, 1261.

Happy to hear that you are breathing once again with both lungs!

Mike,

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

1) Paragraph #1261 may be referring to Limbo. That's what is referenced in the CCC Index, and that interpretation has never been condemned and/or censored by the Church nor by any bishop.

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

3) Paragraph #1261 cannot be read as offering any 'good hope'":

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

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

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

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

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

What Pope Sixtus V stated in his Papal Bull Effraenatam still stands.