Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

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

Maybe the Methodists can make this clear to;

retired Bishop William Skylstad, Father Drew Christiansen, editor of America Magazine; Msgr. Kevin Irwin, dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington; Connie Lasher, Ph.D., Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California; and Angela Russell Christman, Ph.D., of Loyola College in Baltimore.

on Earth Day, especially concerning the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.

Keep looking at the trees Mike.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

This is why when I am praying just yards away from the local abortion murder clinic, although I along with the others pray, we can not baptize the the infant, We pray that God will spiritually help them. Therefore we have hope and this gives us comfort. Yes they deserve exactly what Pope Eugene IV and many others have taught and I believe that to be true and would never minimize, reduce or change their words, most especially when they are Ex Cathedra. I am very rigorist in my living and explaining the faith and as Father Feeney says, Leave the mercies to God. I quess it all comes down to whether we believe that God is bound by His Sacraments or not.

Columba,

On this particular teachig in the CCC where I see a reaffimation of constant Church teaching, you see error.

Error in the CCC?

columba wrote:

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

Maybe the Methodists can make this clear to;

retired Bishop William Skylstad, Father Drew Christiansen, editor of America Magazine; Msgr. Kevin Irwin, dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at The Catholic University of America in Washington; Connie Lasher, Ph.D., Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California; and Angela Russell Christman, Ph.D., of Loyola College in Baltimore.

on Earth Day, especially concerning the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.

Keep looking at the trees Mike.

And keep looking at the anecdotal comedy such as this liberal PC "eco-Eucharist" stupidity involving a retired Bishop (after having wrecked havoc upon the Church) still living the 60's revolution, and use this as a club to beat Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict BXVI, VCII, the CCC, The International Theological Commission, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Canon Law, VCII, Pope Pius XII and the saints and theologians in every age for advocating and permitting the like "errors" of baptism of desire and, as of late, the doctrine of hope.

Why not just post a permanent link to that notorious sede sect in upstate NY so you and FFOT can have a field day with the "amazing heresies" of Pope BXVI and his "apostate Church"?

MRyan wrote:
And keep looking at the anecdotal comedy such as this liberal PC "eco-Eucharist" stupidity involving a retired Bishop (after having wrecked havoc upon the Church) still living the 60's revolution, and use this as a club to beat Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict BXVI, VCII, the CCC, The International Theological Commission, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Canon Law, VCII, Pope Pius XII and the saints and theologians in every age for advocating and permitting the like "errors" of baptism of desire and, as of late, the doctrine of hope.

Why not just post a permanent link to that notorious sede sect in upstate NY so you and FFOT can have a field day with the "amazing heresies" of Pope BXVI and his "apostate Church"?

It weren't any sede who appointed William Skylstad as bishop or appointed him President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and permitted him to remain bishop til his retirement in 2010 or allowed him to wreak havoc in the Church for a few decades. In fact if the sede's had had a say in the appointment of bishops the Church might have avoided the present state of chaos. But of course I agree; this small remnant of sede's are the real culprits. Those darn sede's.

Mike writes:

the very reason that says the fate of unbaptized infants has always has been a reformable doctrine (within due limits) open to further development, just as the baptism of blood martyrdom of the Holy Innocents was, and the existence of Limbo is, open to further development.

And who said it was not open to further development? This is a straw man. For example, are unbaptized infants who die with original sin in the "hell" of St. Augustine? are they in the "hell" (Limbo) of St. Thomas?

Are the babies of unbaptized Catholics who intended their baptism saved (Cajetan)? Are aborted babies saved?

I reject the Cajetan hypothesis, and the aborted babies baptism of blood hypothesis, but neither is inconsistent with or - more importantly for purposes of where we are in the discussion - renders into a null set the infallible definition of Pope Eugene, which holds that those who depart with "original sin alone" go to hell to suffer punishment.

You simply refuse to deal with the precise issue, and throw up smokescreens to avoid it . . . like, "the Limbo of the fathers a 'null set,' imagine that"? The Church declared the Limbo of the fathers is now a "null set" not because it changed its mind and contradicted an infallible pronouncement but because the time decreed arrived - Christ's descending into hell to release the OT fathers - and the set, once full, has been emptied. In fact, the Church declared the set "empty" at the same time she told us of it having souls in it before Christ's descent. This is not "development" of doctrine, but part of the original and consistent doctrine "once delivered to the saints."

All of the possibilities mentioned above - Cajetan's, the aborted babies baptism of blood conjecture - neither would make the set of those who departed in "original sin alone" in hell to be empty. Pope Eugene's definition would not therefore become a "null set." Infants of non-Catholic or Christian parents, infants who didn't undergo the "baptism of blood" of abortion, they would still have died with "original sin alone" and be in hell if those hypotheses were true.

However, if the hope is real and all infants are saved, no one would be in hell with "original sin alone" - unless, perhaps, mentally deficient adults who died without baptism. But the theological commission with it's hope, and the CCC, rely upon the universal salvific will of God - you want to come forward with a rational and consistent argument for distinguishing between infants incapable of personal sin and mentally deficient adults incapable of personal sin in light of the universal salvific will to save all men, go right ahead. I say you can't make a consistent distinction. If the infants with original sin alone and no personal sin are save on the basis of the universal salvific will, so should those adults who have "original sin alone" and not committed any culpable action for which they could be held responsible.

We are back to, does the Church define and reveal "null sets"? You can mock my logic, but it won't go away. If the set is not null and peopled, someone must be there.
Non-reformable aspects may remain to be "formed" which are not inconsistent with the infallible, true and not capable of being contradicted assertion of Pope Eugene that addresses real, existing souls (I say) and is not pure speculation or abstract theorizing about souls that do not, in fact, exist.

If there is real hope that all infants who die without baptism are saved, there must be hope as to the mentally deficient adults, and the set is "null."

I say it can't be null, and wait for that point to be established - that the Church has, or can, infallibly describe "null sets."

The possibility of Limbo being "null" doesn't empty Pope Eugene's set.

tornpage wrote:Columba,

On this particular teaching in the CCC where I see a reaffimation of constant Church teaching, you see error.

Error in the CCC?

No, not just "error", heresy; but neither you nor columba appear to have the courage of your convictions to call it by its true name -- if your respective re-writes and understanding of the dogmatic definitions are correct.

You talk a big game, until we realize that this is all an academic exercise for the two of you (and a poor one at that) -- having no real repercussions for the one true Church except your desire to "prove" that the Church has "erred" by teaching a doctrine in blatant contradiction to her own defined dogmas.

After all, heresy? Who cares? Are you a respecter of men, afraid to call it as it is, or are you willing to stand up for what you say you believe and call the so-called "error" by its proper name?

Columba, for all your talk about being a little St. Athanasius, you seem to have a problem with having the courage of your convictions. Isn't it true that if anyone had taught the baptisms of blood/desire "error" in his day (and not just that Arian "error"), he would have not minced words in condemning the heresy and the heretics - isn't that right?

So is it only some heresies which should be condemned as formally heretical (those which are starkly opposed to defined dogma), while others, along with the Catholic Church and her popes who teach the heretical "errors" (and actually place the heresies in the universal Catechism), get a meaningless and free "material error" pass because the only thing the two of you can do is throw insignificant pebbles against the edifice of the visible Church, and Peter?

OK, columba isn't sure if it is Peter; see, the First Vatican Council gave him dogmatic permission to sift his teachings and actions until he figures it out; yes it did. And the "Is the pope Catholic" discernment process can take years.

Anyway, I'm still confused. Did the Catholic Church formally define as a matter of divine and Catholic faith that no one at all can be saved without actual water baptism, and did she formally define as a mater of divine and Catholic faith that all infants who die without benefit of water baptism are eternally punished in hell?

Oh, and as an added bonus, didn't the Catholic Church formally define that no one at all can be saved, even if he dies while professing Christ, if he is not already baptized in the sacrament?

Come on Columba and Tornpage, step up to the plate and please don't tell us that you don't care if what the Church formally teaches in her CCC is heresy or not. How can it not be if what you say is true? How can a defined dogma of the Church be "obscure" or "hidden" from the one true Church of Christ?

I'm not buying the bluff and bluster.

But please, do continue with the accusations of "error" against the Church for teaching doctrines which are in blatant opposition to what you say are defined dogmas of divine and Catholic faith. The Church can make these silly "errors"; after all, she is only human when she proposes doctrines for the universal Church, and might "accidentally" get it wrong on matters of faith and salvation.

And with baptism of desire, she has been getting it "wrong" for centuries on end; forgetting that she already defined the opposite dogma. And she also appears to have had a senior moment by forgetting she already "defined" that all unbaptized infants must suffer the eternal punishment of hell.

Silly Church, sometimes she forget things ... like her own defined dogmas; so there is no need to take her seriously when she makes such blatant gaffes and acts like she actually believes her own propaganda, and places these gaffes in the universal Catechism(s) as if she actually expects us to trust her in these matters -- that these doctrines are true, and cannot be opposed to faith or tradition.

Ha! What is she thinking? But we know she can be at times like one's aging senile uncle. And this talk by the Church of being "forever young" is pretty funny, no?

So this "heresy" talk is not what really matters; we're all adults having a gown-up conversation; and it is eminently more fun just to "prove" that we are smarter than the Church without having to face the consequences of our convictions and accusations.

Hey Tornpage, have you finally figured out that your re-write of the dogma is nothing more than your unsubstantiated "opinion"? But even as an opinion, does it not have heretical repercussions for the Church - if it were actually true?

I would ask the same of Columba, but it is a lost cause. That fence he is straddling appears to be cutting off some vital circulation.

But, a little ecumenical "Eco-Eucharist" talk should revive him. Stuff like that goes a long way, and makes for good ground cover when one's accusations of heresy against the Church on matters of faith and salvation are exposed to the light of reason and truth, otherwise known as the light of the Magisterium of the One True Church of Christ.

Come on Columba and Tornpage, step up to the plate and please don't tell us that you don't care if what the Church formally teaches in her CCC is heresy or not.

The truth is I don't care if the Church is teaching heresy in the CCC.

I do care if I'm wrong, and the CCC is right. Then I need to get in line with the Church and the CCC.

If that distinction means nothing to you, so be it. It's the case.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And keep looking at the anecdotal comedy such as this liberal PC "eco-Eucharist" stupidity involving a retired Bishop (after having wrecked havoc upon the Church) still living the 60's revolution, and use this as a club to beat Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Benedict BXVI, VCII, the CCC, The International Theological Commission, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Canon Law, VCII, Pope Pius XII and the saints and theologians in every age for advocating and permitting the like "errors" of baptism of desire and, as of late, the doctrine of hope.

Why not just post a permanent link to that notorious sede sect in upstate NY so you and FFOT can have a field day with the "amazing heresies" of Pope BXVI and his "apostate Church"?

It weren't any sede who appointed William Skylstad as bishop or appointed him President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and permitted him to remain bishop til his retirement in 2010 or allowed him to wreak havoc in the Church for a few decades. In fact if the sede's had had a say in the appointment of bishops the Church might have avoided the present state of chaos. But of course I agree; this small remnant of sede's are the real culprits. Those darn sede's.

Fine, columba, let's look at what what the statement actually says:

The statement notes that elements of nature—grain for bread and grapes for wine—become part of salvation through the Eucharist and that salvation itself is an act of God at work in all of creation and all creation encountering God. This has implications for believers in their relationship with God’s creation in the environment.

Now, all of this is absolutely true, and if it can serve as reminder of the truth while planting the seed of the true doctrine of the Eucharist in the minds of those who would not otherwise give it a second thought, I'm all for it.

Of course, what I oppose is the idea that obscured by all this is the true doctrine on the Eucharist, and, because it is an "ecumenical" initiative, while the truth is not cast aside, it is somewhat buried for the sake of a more palpable statement that seeks common ground.

In other words, columba, my knee-jerk reaction ("stupidity") was clouded by my own bias which sees nothing except PC propaganda at the expense of Catholic truth, when, while there is some truth in this, it is also true that this is just more of the same ecumenical correctness that does not deny the truth, but respects the beliefs of others and looks for common ground so that those of various faith traditions, and even those with no tradition, can see "earth-day" in a new light - the light of Creation and the light of faith in the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord; and we pray that even Methodist's come to the fullness of this truth.

tornpage wrote:

Come on Columba and Tornpage, step up to the plate and please don't tell us that you don't care if what the Church formally teaches in her CCC is heresy or not.

The truth is I don't care if the Church is teaching heresy in the CCC.

I do care if I'm wrong, and the CCC is right. Then I need to get in line with the Church and the CCC.

If that distinction means nothing to you, so be it. It's the case.

You care if you are wrong, and you care if the CCC is right; but you don't care if you are right the Church is teaching heresy, which it must be if your re-write of the "definition" is correct.

So if you don't care if what the Church teaches is heresy, I don't care one wit for your "opinion" which defines for the Church her true dogma - for none of this matters is dogmas are relative, and the only thing that matters is whether you are right or wrong.

I recognize the distinction you are making; but I wonder if you understand the implications for what you are proposing.

It matters.

Allie wrote:I have a question a little off topic....

If the current Pope is not truly a valid Pope (nor several of his predecessors)..then can a person really obtain indulgences by, say, praying the family Rosary, Stations of the Cross, or any other indulgenced prayer? Part of fulfilling the indulgence requirements is praying for the intentions of the Holy Father... so if we do not at present have a valid Holy Father how does a sede or sede-leaning Catholic obtain indulgences?

Just something that has been thrown around in my head a bit that I'd love to hear an answer/reasoning for.

Hope all are well!

Hi Allie,

The sede would argue that he/she does indeed pray for the intentions of the Holy Father, that being the Holy Father who just might one day, by divine intervention, make his appearance after a 54 year sede vacante period (give or take a few years, decades or centuries); a period without a visible successor lasting generations, and without a means to elect a "true" pope, all without a disruption to the dogma of perpetual visible succession.

How seriously our Blessed Mother and our Lord take the sede's is not ours to judge.

Come on Columba and Tornpage, step up to the plate and please don't tell us that you don't care if what the Church formally teaches in her CCC is heresy or not. How can it not be if what you say is true? How can a defined dogma of the Church be "obscure" or "hidden" from the one true Church of Christ?

Why would I accuse anyone (much less the Catholic Church) of "heresy" if I'm not sure that I'm right?

That's why I'm here - prove me wrong, MRyan.

Issue: Is is possible that Pope Eugene infallibly taught a proposition involving "souls" that in fact does not speak to any existing soul out there?

To me, your distinctions don't cut it and make no sense. Imagine you're talking to an idiot - I don't care (and that might be true, anyway). Look at my next to last post and address the issue, and don't throw up smokescreens - Limbo could be a null set, the Limbo of the Fathers is a null set, there are reformable aspects to the teachings regarding unbaptized infants - as if you were hiding or running from something.

Is is possible that Pope Eugene infallibly taught a proposition involving "souls" (dying with "original sin alone") that in fact does not speak to any existing soul out there which meets the definition?

If one can claim that Pope Eugene IV was defining the existence of a null set, then one could also say that #1261 was describing a null set.

tornpage wrote:

Come on Columba and Tornpage, step up to the plate and please don't tell us that you don't care if what the Church formally teaches in her CCC is heresy or not. How can it not be if what you say is true? How can a defined dogma of the Church be "obscure" or "hidden" from the one true Church of Christ?

Why would I accuse anyone (much less the Catholic Church) of "heresy" if I'm not sure that I'm right?

It matters because IF you are right, and you certainly scoffed at the idea that you might be wrong with your re-write of the definition, then the Church is clearly teaching heresy.

Does that matter; or will you tell me that we'll just have to cross that bridge if you can't be proven to be wrong? In other words, you provided your dogmatic re-write knowing full well that if you are correct, the Church is teaching heresy; but that is not what matters - at the moment; what matters is that I prove you wrong.

But, I already have. Your "null set" hypothesis is irrelevant, as it always is with respect to the reformable aspects to any given dogma. The Church defines only what she knows to be revealed truth - and only that; and she knows that all of those who die in original sin alone suffer the punishment of hell. But she does not know if unbaptized infants can have the honor of the kingdom, for she does not know how original sin can be removed without baptism - for the simple reason that it has not been revealed.

And you are trying to tell me that is has been revealed - and defined, that unbaptized infants suffer the punishment of hell, though you aren't too concerned with the implications for the Church if such a rash judgment is correct.

So, when defining a revealed truth, the Church does not concern herself with what may or may not be a "null set" which may or may not arise as a logical consequence to the development of an unrevealed aspect to any given dogma.

Those unbaptized infants thought to be suffering the eternal torments in hell, no matter how "mild", may actually be a "null set", if the Scholastics are correct. Now, if the Church has never "defined" the existence of Limbo, and has never defined that unbaptized infants cannot be saved by God, both the "limbo" of hell and the eternal torments of hell might represent "null sets" for infants if the hope of salvation includes all unbaptized infants, which is entirely possible. We don't know, and neither does the Church; but she now has sure reasons to hope for their salvation.

tornpage wrote:
Is it possible that Pope Eugene infallibly taught a proposition involving "souls" (dying with "original sin alone") that in fact does not speak to any existing soul out there which meets the definition?

Pope Eugene IV did not concern himself with the latter, for he defined the dogma knowing full that A) souls who die sin original sin alone are lost, and B) with the assumption, but not with infallible certitude, that unabaptized infants are lost.

You are trying to tell us that he would not have defined A if he thought B might turn out to be a “null set”, which is like saying the Church should not condemn the unnecessary delay of infant baptism if there is a possibility that God will save the infant anyway. I’m saying whether B is a null set or not was not his concern, for it has nothing to do with the truth of the dogma itself.

In other words, the non-revealed, reformable and undefined truth of B does not dictate the truth of dogmatic A, even if it turns out that God does in fact save all unbaptized infants such that He does not allow souls to die in original sin alone. But, by the very fact that the real possibility exists that any or all such all souls are lost (and it was certainly the common opinion), the Church would have been negligent not to have defined the dogma, thus leaving the fate of unbaptized infants to a high-stakes crap-shoot, and truly rendering the sacrament of baptism “superfluous” for unbaptized infants and mentally handicapped adults, and anyone else for whom the possibility of dying in original sin alone might exist.

To the last point, do you know for a fact, Tornpage, that there are not souls above the age of reason who cannot die in original sin alone; meaning no mortal sins? I seem to remember a theologian or two discussing that very proposition with respect to certain ancient cultures cut off from "faith by hearing".

How many times must we go over this?

tornpage wrote:

Mike writes:

the very reason that says the fate of unbaptized infants has always has been a reformable doctrine (within due limits) open to further development, just as the baptism of blood martyrdom of the Holy Innocents was, and the existence of Limbo is, open to further development.

And who said it was not open to further development? This is a straw man. For example, are unbaptized infants who die with original sin in the "hell" of St. Augustine? are they in the "hell" (Limbo) of St. Thomas?

You did, when you presented your re-write of the dogma that allegedly says “hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of 'original sin alone'".

Stop pretending that the "reform" we are talking about is the reform of sense suffering and limbo, that's not the main issue, salvation is the issue. You cannot have it both ways. Nice tap dance, btw.

Stop pretending that the "reform" we are talking about is the reform of sense suffering and limbo, that's not the main issue, salvation is the issue. You cannot have it both ways. Nice tap dance, btw.

Nonsense. You said I was ignoring that there are reformable aspects of the definition.

The issue is precisely what is the "non-reformable" aspect of the definition and what is behind it . . . real souls, or a "null set."

I realize you might have addressed that in your last couple, and maybe come down to my level and made it digestible at a 10th grade level (me on a good day).

We shall see.

Jehanne wrote:If one can claim that Pope Eugene IV was defining the existence of a null set, then one could also say that #1261 was describing a null set.

And .... it is IMPOSSIBLE to "define" a null set when the alleged null set has not been revealed.

Get it?

Nice tap dance, btw.

Nice fog machine, btw.

You must be in great demand come the end of October.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:If one can claim that Pope Eugene IV was defining the existence of a null set, then one could also say that #1261 was describing a null set.

And .... it is IMPOSSIBLE to "define" a null set when the alleged null set has not been revealed.

Get it?

We're talking about multiple null set definitions here:

“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 3:5], 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 25:41,46]” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Tornpage, do you think that the above is defining one or two null sets? (Finally, a real debate!)

Mryan wrote:
both the "limbo" of hell and the eternal torments of hell might represent "null sets" for infants if the hope of salvation includes all unbaptized infants, which is entirely possible. We don't know, and neither does the Church; but she now has sure reasons to hope for their salvation.

Mike,
Can you tell us where the present Church's new hope originates? What new understanding has emerged in the past half century that was hitherto unknown by the Church in the past?
It can't be the love that Our Lord has for little children that inspires this new hope as this special love of Christ was always known by the apostles and likewise the Church throughout the ages, yet it never prevented her teaching that those same infants who die unbaptized cannot enter into the beatific vision.

Do you think holy mother Church was lacking charity when teaching thus and that she did not wish the salvation of these infants? Do you think the post concilair Church has a monopoly on charity that the Church til then did not possess?

Again, What are the revelations on which this new hope is based that were unknown by previous magisteria?

MRyan wrote:
In other words, columba, my knee-jerk reaction ("stupidity") was clouded by my own bias which sees nothing except PC propaganda at the expense of Catholic truth, when, while there is some truth in this, it is also true that this is just more of the same ecumenical correctness that does not deny the truth, but respects the beliefs of others and looks for common ground so that those of various faith traditions, and even those with no tradition, can see "earth-day" in a new light - the light of Creation and the light of faith in the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord; and we pray that even Methodist's come to the fullness of this truth.

Your knee-jerk reaction was in accord with Pascendi Dominici Gregis; after all, some truth is no truth at all.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14)

Jehanne,

“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 3:5], 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 25:41,46]” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Tornpage, do you think that the above is defining one or two null sets? (Finally, a real debate!)

I don't think it's defining a null set.

Columba,

Mike,
Can you tell us where the present Church's new hope originates? What new understanding has emerged in the past half century that was hitherto unknown by the Church in the past?
It can't be the love that Our Lord has for little children that inspires this new hope as this special love of Christ was always known by the apostles and likewise the Church throughout the ages, yet it never prevented her teaching that those same infants who die unbaptized cannot enter into the beatific vision.

Do you think holy mother Church was lacking charity when teaching thus and that she did not wish the salvation of these infants? Do you think the post concilair Church has a monopoly on charity that the Church til then did not possess?

Again, What are the revelations on which this new hope is based that were unknown by previous magisteria?

Good questions.

Tornpage,

I've been indulging in a little sarcasm lately in response to some of Mike's posts.
This can have the effect on ones oponent (if that be the right word) of making it harder to give any ground.
I'll probably still employ a bit of sarcasm with Mike even while knowning it will be detrimental to my search for truth (its a fault I have for which I'm praying for the grace to overcome).
The questions contained in my last post I would really appreciate good honest answers because while examing the reasons in the CCC for the hope we can now have for those infants, I couldn't find anything new that wasn't already believed by the Church throughout her history concerning the matter. And Mike keeping repeating that phrase "in the present economy" made it sound as if something was better understood now than it was before. I can't see it. If Mike can I would like to see it too.

Allie said:

I have a question a little off topic....

If the current Pope is not truly a valid Pope (nor several of his predecessors)..then can a person really obtain indulgences by, say, praying the family Rosary, Stations of the Cross, or any other indulgenced prayer? Part of fulfilling the indulgence requirements is praying for the intentions of the Holy Father... so if we do not at present have a valid Holy Father how does a sede or sede-leaning Catholic obtain indulgences?

Just something that has been thrown around in my head a bit that I'd love to hear an answer/reasoning for.

Good hearing from you, Allie

God is the Judge, so we leave your question humbly, completely and with unquestioned faith in God { Blessed Trinity } BTW, My opinion is that Our Blessed Mothers intercession for souls will continue to be developed by Holy Mother Church beyond our imagination.

I make NO judgements on any of the following scenarios for I will judge not:

If a person denies that the Pope is a true Pope, Judgement includes that disposition and all that goes with it.

If a person is not sure if the Pope is a true Pope, judgement will include that frame of mind, along with all their reasons in the thought process. I do not think anyone on this forum is in this mode.

If a person is not sure and is in a study mode to decide for themselves at some future point{ if they live that long } if the Pope is a true Pope, judgement includes that frame of mind.

If a person is sure that the Pope is the true Pope , but that we have gone through an incredible crisis of faith over the last half of century for many reasons but we will weather the storm by fixing the problems with Charity in truth, then we will be judged for this frame of mind........ This is me.

If a person is sure that the Pope is the true Pope and we pray and live our Faith, then we will be judged for this frame of mind. I pray that I may live to be in this frame of mind for this is where I was in grade school. shame on me.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
In other words, columba, my knee-jerk reaction ("stupidity") was clouded by my own bias which sees nothing except PC propaganda at the expense of Catholic truth, when, while there is some truth in this, it is also true that this is just more of the same ecumenical correctness that does not deny the truth, but respects the beliefs of others and looks for common ground so that those of various faith traditions, and even those with no tradition, can see "earth-day" in a new light - the light of Creation and the light of faith in the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord; and we pray that even Methodist's come to the fullness of this truth.

Your knee-jerk reaction was in accord with Pascendi Dominici Gregis; after all, some truth is no truth at all.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14)

No, my knee-jerk reaction was an instinctive throw-back to the rad-trad habit of condemning anything "ecumenical" before reading the actual document, but only the press release or the commentary of other rad-trads. In fact, I wrote my modified response (above) even prior to reading the actual document, the relevant portion of which I then provided on the original thread. In other words, upon careful reflection and after reading the actual subject document, it turns out my post knee-jerk instincts were right.

I'm only human, but I should know better than to pull the anger trigger before knowing the actual facts. This was the perfect rad-trad "storm" just waiting for the collective knee-jerk response.

Does that mean we have to "approve" of the initiative? No, there are legitimate reasons for objection, but there is no heresy, there is no apostasy and there is no question of a condemned communicatio in sacris. The document spells out very clearly both the limitations and the expectations of the initiative, without for a minute compromising the Faith or encouraging the spirit of indifferentism.

Your "some truth is no truth" comment is one of those "rad-trad" sophism's that is supposed to stop us in our tracks with its unfailing wisdom; but in context, it is nothing more than a feel-good bumper sticker, campaign slogan and sound-bite with which to attack the Church's ecumenical initiatives.

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
both the "limbo" of hell and the eternal torments of hell might represent "null sets" for infants if the hope of salvation includes all unbaptized infants, which is entirely possible. We don't know, and neither does the Church; but she now has sure reasons to hope for their salvation.

Mike,
Can you tell us where the present Church's new hope originates?

It probably originates with St. Ambrose, who taught:

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom. (Abraham, 387 A.D, The Faith of the early fathers, Vol 2, pg. 169)

Contrary to Tornpage’s opinion, the question has never been definitively settled (let alone “defined”), so the Church has every right to seek a more definitive answer to the question which has remained open since St. Ambrose admitted his uncertainty; and, though she has not resolved the question, she would tell St. Ambrose, “we do not know either, but we have sure reasons for hope”. Now, that is not much by way of “development”, but it is a development from the more pessimistic view that would take hold as the common opinion.

Now why would St. Ambrose say that he does “not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom” if was always known that unbaptized infants could not have the honor of the kingdom? Neither did the Eastern Fathers have a solution to this question, but they did not assume that unbaptized infants suffered the fires of hell; and neither did the early Latin Fathers until St. Augustine, whose pessimistic view would dominate for 800 years.

Here’s some additional perspective on where the question of hope (or no hope) originates:

"THE DEATH of an unbaptized infant presents Catholic theologians with a poignant problem. The dawn star of Christian culture had hardly risen when men first raised the question, and it has continued to echo through the centuries. There are reasons enough for the persistent reappearance of the difficulty. The fate of an unbaptized child is closely tied to several highly volatile questions: original sin, the necessity of baptism, the salvific will of God. Each of these issues is a vital nerve in the body of Catholic doctrine, and each can be studied with clinical precision in the person of an unbaptized child. The question, then, is not pure pedantry; and if it seems a discouraging one, we have the admonition of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "I venture to assert that it is not right to omit the examination which is within the range of our ability, or to leave the question here raised without making any inquiries or having any ideas about it."(LIMBO: A THEOLOGICAL EVALUATION by GEORGE J. DYER, 1958)

As far as understanding the origins of the Theological, Scriptural and Liturgical reasons for hope, I would revisit my original posts on the “Mercy Reigns” thread, paying particular attention to the “Extracts taken from Abortion and Martyrdom" and especially the sections on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas; and read again the International Theological Commission.

columba wrote:
What new understanding has emerged in the past half century that was hitherto unknown by the Church in the past? It can't be the love that Our Lord has for little children that inspires this new hope as this special love of Christ was always known by the apostles and likewise the Church throughout the ages, yet it never prevented her teaching that those same infants who die unbaptized cannot enter into the beatific vision.

Do you think holy mother Church was lacking charity when teaching thus and that she did not wish the salvation of these infants? Do you think the post concilair Church has a monopoly on charity that the Church til then did not possess?

Why don’t you ask what the Scholastics knew that St. Augustine and the other Church Fathers, Popes and the universal moral consensus of theologians knew for eight centuries about the eternal torments of unbaptized infants?

Did the Scholastics and the popes who supported their teaching have a monopoly on “charity”? I mean, is the Church less “charitable” if unbaptized infants suffer the eternal fires of hell? Do they “deserve” eternal torments? Yes? Then why question the status quo as if it is uncharitable to have unbaptized infants suffer hell-fire as partakers with the devil, even if the pain of hell-fire is “mild”?

What new understanding emerged with the Scholastics that was heretofore unknown by the Church in the past? It can't be the love that Our Lord has for little children that inspired this new hope of eternal natural happiness with no sense suffering in the fires of hell, as this special love of Christ was always known by the apostles and likewise the Church throughout the ages; yet it never prevented her teaching that those same infants who die unbaptized cannot escape the fires of hell.

Perhaps when you can answer that question, I will have answered yours.

Again, What are the revelations on which this new hope is based that were unknown by previous magisteria?

Again, what are the revelations on which the new hope of natural happiness devoid of sense suffering was based -- that were unknown by previous magisteria?

Furthermore, as a non-revealed doctrine (the final fate of unbaptized infants), there can be new “new” revelations, but only a development in the doctrine, and only because it is subject to reform.

MRyan wrote:
Furthermore, as a non-revealed doctrine (the final fate of unbaptized infants), there can be new “new” revelations, but only a development in the doctrine, and only because it is subject to reform.

Meant to say ... "there can be NO “new” revelations, but only a development in the doctrine, ..."

Mike,

From the International Theological Commission:

19. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”. It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”. This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.

The idea of Limbo was present at the time of Saint Augustine; it was not some "medieval development."

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

From the International Theological Commission:

19. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”. It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”. This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.

The idea of Limbo was present at the time of Saint Augustine; it was not some "medieval development."

The "idea" of hope was present since the time of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, both of whom stated their uncertainty about the matter.

But the implicit "idea" of Limbo did not take solid form until the Scholastics put some teeth into it, and the ONLY way to do that was to reform the common opinion of Augustine on sense suffering (Augustine saw this as the more likely, and the only "logical" answer to the question).

Stop playing games with this, Jehanne, as if there is no "real" difference between the sense suffering/eternal torments promoted by Augustine (and reflected in official Church documents), and the natural happiness pain-free limbo of the Scholastics, also reflected in Church documents.

Anyone who says there was no real development and reform is willfully blind.

And, if "This council [Carthage] did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism", it did endorse the following:

3a. It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions” [John 14]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed 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. Matt. 25,46].

Matthew 25: 41, 46:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Yeah, sure sounds like "Limbo" to me!

MRyan wrote:Stop playing games with this, Jehanne, as if there is no "real" difference between the sense suffering/eternal torments promoted by Augustine (and reflected in official Church documents), and the natural happiness pain-free limbo of the Scholastics, also reflected in Church documents.

As you yourself have said, Saint Augustine held to multiple positions on the fate of infants who die without Baptism, so the "position" which he promoted can hardly be said to be the "only" one. Besides, the scholastics did not teach that Limbo was "pain-free":

Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues, O.P. 1922

Do infants who have died without baptism suffer the pain of loss in Limbo?

Yes, to a certain degree, for they know they are deprived of the vision of God; but this has not the character of torture such as those in hell suffer (Appendix, 1.2).

So, one of the multiple opinions which Saint Augustine taught was "universally held and taught" for 800 or so years only to be abandoned by the majority of theologians in the Middle Ages only to be revived later on by a minority of theologians, never to be formally condemned by the Church of even today. So, just because we cannot say that infants who die without Baptism are not in the "Hell of Suffering" versus the "Hell of Separation" that such somehow "proves" that they must be in Heaven. Is that what you are saying?

No, Jehanne, it is more accurate to say that Augustine's doctrine developed over time:

Limbus infantium

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Pre-Augustinian tradition

There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative:

It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Oration 40, no. 23]

Thus, according to Gregory, for children dying without baptism, and excluded for want of the "seal" from the "honor" or gratuitous favor of seeing God face to face, an intermediate or neutral state is admissible, which, unlike that of the personally wicked, is free from positive punishment. And, for the West, Tertullian opposes infant baptism on the ground that infants are innocent, while St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement; and the Ambrosiaster teaches that the "second death," which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam's sin, but by our own. This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine's time.

Teaching of St. Augustine

In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.

Post-Augustinian teaching

After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm (d. 1109), who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of the inherited sin (De conceptu virginali). On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point. According to him there was no guilt (culpa), but only punishment (poena), in the proper notion of original sin; and although this doctrine was rightly condemned by the Council of Soissons in 1140, his teaching, which rejected material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of original sin (Comm. in Rom.), was not only not condemned but was generally accepted and improved upon by the Scholastics. Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, popularized it (Sent. II, xxxiii, 5), and it acquired a certain degree of official authority from the letter of Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles, which soon found its way into the "Corpus Juris". Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii — Majores). It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness.

[...] It should be added that in St. Thomas' view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity.

The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching — for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity. At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness, and the Jansenists followed on the same lines. This reacted in two ways on Catholic opinion, first by compelling attention to the true historical situation, which the Scholastics had understood very imperfectly, and second by stimulating an all-round opposition to Augustinian severity regarding the effects of original sin; and the immediate result was to set up two Catholic parties, one of whom either rejected St. Thomas to follow the authority of St. Augustine or vainly try to reconcile the two, while the other remained faithful to the Greek Fathers and St. Thomas. The latter party, after a fairly prolonged struggle, has certainly the balance of success on its side.

MRyan wrote:Post-Augustinian teaching

After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm (d. 1109), who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of the inherited sin (De conceptu virginali). On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point. According to him there was no guilt (culpa), but only punishment (poena), in the proper notion of original sin; [color=cyan]and although this doctrine was rightly condemned by the Council of Soissons in 1140, his teaching, which rejected material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of original sin (Comm. in Rom.), was not only not condemned but was generally accepted and improved upon by the Scholastics.

Okay, let me get this straight:

1) Augustine changed his mind on the eternal fate of infants who die without Baptism.

2) Per the ITC, the Council of Carthage did not endorse all of Augustine's views.

What about this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_of_Nineveh

Wacław Hryniewicz (2007) argues that Brocks translation (1995) of the Second Part of Isaac's writings on Gehenna (discovered 1983) confirm claims of earlier Universalist historians such as J. W. Hanson (1899) that Isaac was an advocate of universal reconciliation.

So much for that "universal consensus"!

Jehanne,

Have you got it straight that Augustine's view developed to one of positive sensory damnation?

While the ITC report might have said that Carthage "did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism", in the same paragraph, it did confirm the one aspect of his severe doctrine that concerns us:

God is just. If he condemns unbaptised children to hell, it is because they are sinners. Although these infants are punished in hell, they will suffer only the “mildest condemnation” (“mitissima poena”),[33] “the lightest punishment of all”,[34] for there are diverse punishments in proportion to the guilt of the sinner.[35] These infants were unable to help themselves, but there is no injustice in their condemnation because all belong to “the same mass”, the mass destined for perdition.

In other words, as the CE says, "St. Augustine [held] that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned", which is both material torment (poena sensus) and the pain of loss (poena damni).

I don't know what that "guy" ("Isaac of Nineveh", 700 A.D. and considered a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church) has to do with St. Augustine. "Isaac" was also considered an advocate of "universal reconciliation" (apokatastasis), as were (allegedly) a couple of other famous Eastern Fathers, such as Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, as you well know.

So what? Before Augustine, there was no "universal consensus", but there was no prevailing doctrine of sense torments, either. We already established that fact. With and after Augustine, however, there was a universal moral consensus lasting 800 years, even if there were a few hold-outs (and I'll bet the East did not march in lock-step with the West).

Mike,

All that you can show is that the Church, for a long time, taught a certain, "popular" opinion about the fate of infants who die without Baptism. However, Isaac of Nineveh's views of universal salvation in the 8th century (which were quite common in the early Church per even the testimony of Saint Augustine) were both known and neither condemned. The Church, to my knowledge, has never condemned the idea of universal salvation which, of course, would include all infants who die without Baptism. Still, do I believe that the Church is into defining the existence of null sets; no, I do not. The ITC never addressed the infallible declaration at the Council of Carthage. You, on the other hand, are trying to make that declaration say things which it did not say. It is possible that infants who are in Hell will simply experience the "pain of loss" without the "pain of the senses."

As for the CCC, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

In particular,

American Catholic bishops have stated that, though theological opinion was not intended to be a part of CCC, it in fact "does not distinguish between matters of faith and theological opinion."

The Church, to my knowledge, has never condemned the idea of universal salvation which, of course, would include all infants who die without Baptism.

Jehanne,

This is interesting.

I raised this before: why wouldn't the set of those in hell - with mortal sin, original sin alone - not be a "null set."

Would not this aspect of the doctrine of hell be "reformable."

Two negatives there.

Q: Why could not the set of those in hell with mortal sin be a "null set" too? It's the other half of Pope Eugene's possible "null set" in hell, after all.

Mike wrote:

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

Has if been defined that "hell contains souls that are there suffering punishment because of " 'mortal sin' "?

I wrote:


The monitum says:

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

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

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

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

The opinions are "DEVOID OF ANY SOLID FOUNDATION."

Not any more apparently:

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

On the one hand, in many ways, the underpinning Christian theological principles seem to favour the salvation of unbaptised infants in accordance with God's universal salvific will.

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

Again:

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

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

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

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

That's sarcasm, not insult to anyone here.

Opinions "devoid of any solid foundation" have suddenly turned into "theological principles [which] seem to favor."

?

Re: Those in Hell with mortal sin

I went back just now to some of my sources which includes countless writings from the Saints,on the fewness of those that are Saved including Purgatory as being in the Saved category and re-reminded myself of the great sadness in the numbers of those that go to Hell. I could not find one Saint, one apparition of Hell and no Church teaching through the centuries that would even come close to giving me any cause for optimism. The per cent of the dammed have always appeared to me to approach...... I was ready to write the number. I can not do it. It is too high. It is too sad beyond words. The many words in the Bible, the flood, Sodom and Gemorrah and on and on and on. Why document or reference it here. It does not seem necessary. I did list one brief link below.





http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7lj6n5hPfSQAMPJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1N2lmZ2IyBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAxMl8xODA-/SIG=12sp405j0/EXP=1335431290/**http%3a//www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/fewsave.htm

You are trying to tell us that he would not have defined A if he thought B might turn out to be a “null set”, which is like saying the Church should not condemn the unnecessary delay of infant baptism if there is a possibility that God will save the infant anyway. I’m saying whether B is a null set or not was not his concern, for it has nothing to do with the truth of the dogma itself.

In other words, the non-revealed, reformable and undefined truth of B does not dictate the truth of dogmatic A, even if it turns out that God does in fact save all unbaptized infants such that He does not allow souls to die in original sin alone.

Finally . . . this goes to the heart of my objection.

The Church has always believed that a consequence of the Fall is that original sin bars real, actual descendants of Adam from the Paradise that otherwise would have been their lot. To me, this is the “defined A.” The corollary to this is that is takes the transmission of grace flowing from the Blood of Christ to open that gate again.

It is now suggested that this consequence of original sin is an illusion, and in fact that the Church has never said that original sin does in fact bar anyone, but that it would be a bar if any son of Adam were to contract it and not have the Blood of Christ wash it away. This is the defined A according to MRyan.

If the newfound hope of the Church regarding unbaptized infants is true, then every child of Adam has original sin washed away by virtue of the Passion – unless someone wants to make a case for the damnation of mentally deficient adults alone as a result of “original sin alone.” I have a feeling we should not hold our breath waiting for the advancement of such a distinction.

Let us therefore conclude that the only ones who are barred from Paradise are those who commit personal, mortal sin.

To which MRyan says, “imagine that.”

Yes, let us not only imagine that, but let us look at what that means regarding “original sin” as this thread moves forward.

And perhaps we can also consider what I say is a necessary logical consequence (oh dear . . . imagine that! grab the unbaptized babies!) of the distinctions advanced by MRyan as to original sin if they were applied to mortal sin. After all, why not? The other half of Pope Eugene’s definition is that souls who commit mortal sin immediately descend to hell to suffer punishment. His definition, with MRyan’s qualification, did not define that there are actually souls in hell with mortal sin, but that any such souls would be in hell if they died with mortal sin.

I’ll follow MRyan’s bouncing ball as far as it goes . . . which apparently may not be hell. A place which might only be “peopled” with unicorns, apparently.

MRyan wrote:
Your "some truth is no truth" comment is one of those "rad-trad" sophism's that is supposed to stop us in our tracks with its unfailing wisdom; but in context, it is nothing more than a feel-good bumper sticker, campaign slogan and sound-bite with which to attack the Church's ecumenical initiatives.

You attack that phrase "Some truth is no truth at all" using the very principle contained in the phrase to condemn it.
If that comment of mine contains only some truth then it's really a distortion of truth and therefore is no truth at all, thus -like I say- you prove the very truth of that phrase while condemning it.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

Mryan wrote:
both the "limbo" of hell and the eternal torments of hell might represent "null sets" for infants if the hope of salvation includes all unbaptized infants, which is entirely possible. We don't know, and neither does the Church; but she now has sure reasons to hope for their salvation.

Mike,
Can you tell us where the present Church's new hope originates?

It probably originates with St. Ambrose, who taught:

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom. (Abraham, 387 A.D, The Faith of the early fathers, Vol 2, pg. 169)

Contrary to Tornpage’s opinion, the question has never been definitively settled (let alone “defined”), so the Church has every right to seek a more definitive answer to the question which has remained open since St. Ambrose admitted his uncertainty; and, though she has not resolved the question, she would tell St. Ambrose, “we do not know either, but we have sure reasons for hope”. Now, that is not much by way of “development”, but it is a development from the more pessimistic view that would take hold as the common opinion.

Now why would St. Ambrose say that he does “not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom” if was always known that unbaptized infants could not have the honor of the kingdom? Neither did the Eastern Fathers have a solution to this question, but they did not assume that unbaptized infants suffered the fires of hell; and neither did the early Latin Fathers until St. Augustine, whose pessimistic view would dominate for 800 years.

Here’s some additional perspective on where the question of hope (or no hope) originates:

"THE DEATH of an unbaptized infant presents Catholic theologians with a poignant problem. The dawn star of Christian culture had hardly risen when men first raised the question, and it has continued to echo through the centuries. There are reasons enough for the persistent reappearance of the difficulty. The fate of an unbaptized child is closely tied to several highly volatile questions: original sin, the necessity of baptism, the salvific will of God. Each of these issues is a vital nerve in the body of Catholic doctrine, and each can be studied with clinical precision in the person of an unbaptized child. The question, then, is not pure pedantry; and if it seems a discouraging one, we have the admonition of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "I venture to assert that it is not right to omit the examination which is within the range of our ability, or to leave the question here raised without making any inquiries or having any ideas about it."(LIMBO: A THEOLOGICAL EVALUATION by GEORGE J. DYER, 1958)

As far as understanding the origins of the Theological, Scriptural and Liturgical reasons for hope, I would revisit my original posts on the “Mercy Reigns” thread, paying particular attention to the “Extracts taken from Abortion and Martyrdom" and especially the sections on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas; and read again the International Theological Commission.

columba wrote:
What new understanding has emerged in the past half century that was hitherto unknown by the Church in the past? It can't be the love that Our Lord has for little children that inspires this new hope as this special love of Christ was always known by the apostles and likewise the Church throughout the ages, yet it never prevented her teaching that those same infants who die unbaptized cannot enter into the beatific vision.

Do you think holy mother Church was lacking charity when teaching thus and that she did not wish the salvation of these infants? Do you think the post concilair Church has a monopoly on charity that the Church til then did not possess?

Why don’t you ask what the Scholastics knew that St. Augustine and the other Church Fathers, Popes and the universal moral consensus of theologians knew for eight centuries about the eternal torments of unbaptized infants?

Did the Scholastics and the popes who supported their teaching have a monopoly on “charity”? I mean, is the Church less “charitable” if unbaptized infants suffer the eternal fires of hell? Do they “deserve” eternal torments? Yes? Then why question the status quo as if it is uncharitable to have unbaptized infants suffer hell-fire as partakers with the devil, even if the pain of hell-fire is “mild”?

What new understanding emerged with the Scholastics that was heretofore unknown by the Church in the past? It can't be the love that Our Lord has for little children that inspired this new hope of eternal natural happiness with no sense suffering in the fires of hell, as this special love of Christ was always known by the apostles and likewise the Church throughout the ages; yet it never prevented her teaching that those same infants who die unbaptized cannot escape the fires of hell.

Perhaps when you can answer that question, I will have answered yours.

Again, What are the revelations on which this new hope is based that were unknown by previous magisteria?

Again, what are the revelations on which the new hope of natural happiness devoid of sense suffering was based -- that were unknown by previous magisteria?

Furthermore, as a non-revealed doctrine (the final fate of unbaptized infants), there can be no “new” revelations, but only a development in the doctrine, and only because it is subject to reform.

Good reply Mike.
It still doesn't answer the fact that the common and long-standing consensus has been that it would be rash to promote hope of salvation for unbaptized infants. Furthermore, in considering the question, the Church (and theologians) have always (up until presently) confined their speculation to the consideration of the manner of punishment for those departing with original sin alone and not as to whether they obtain salvation which was considered de fide that they do not. This position was still held long after St. Ambrose time, therefore his speculation as to the possibility of salvation for these did not sway the Church's opinion.

For the post conciliar Church to suddenly change direction on this without any new theology being brought to bear must also be consiodered rash, and even moreso in our time when Baptism (since the promotion of baptism of desire) is considered in the psyche of many a modern-day Catholic to be not as necessary for salvation as once thought. To counter with the argument that those who think such thoughts would not cahmge their thinking even if the Church were to condemn it, is also rash, and would render all such condemnations on any matter of faith as useless interventions and exercises in futility.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

All that you can show is that the Church, for a long time, taught a certain, "popular" opinion about the fate of infants who die without Baptism. However, Isaac of Nineveh's views of universal salvation in the 8th century (which were quite common in the early Church per even the testimony of Saint Augustine) were both known and neither condemned. The Church, to my knowledge, has never condemned the idea of universal salvation which, of course, would include all infants who die without Baptism. Still, do I believe that the Church is into defining the existence of null sets; no, I do not. The ITC never addressed the infallible declaration at the Council of Carthage. You, on the other hand, are trying to make that declaration say things which it did not say. It is possible that infants who are in Hell will simply experience the "pain of loss" without the "pain of the senses."

As for the CCC, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

In particular,

American Catholic bishops have stated that, though theological opinion was not intended to be a part of CCC, it in fact "does not distinguish between matters of faith and theological opinion."

The American Catholic bishops are not responsible for the CCC, the Pope is. And it does not matter that some theological opinions, such as the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants, is not a "matter of faith"; it is directly related to the faith and it is the "opinion" of the ordinary papal magisterium and it is presented by the CCC as a "true" teaching (hope, not the assurance of salvation); for why would, and how can the magisterium propose a doctrine to the universal Church on a matter of salvation that is false; meaning, in this undefined case, opposed to revealed truth?

Besides, these same American Bishops are in universal agreement with their brother Bishops on the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants. If you believe all unbaptized infants are condemned to hell, knock yourself out; no one said you have to turn "hope" into the assurance of salvation - the Church hasn't, so why should you?

If you want to take the Fr. Harrison argument that the doctrine of hope is magisterially "weightless" (meaningless and worthless - a "magisterial null set"), go ahead, and I will continue to demonstrate why this is rash, and just another form of dissent from the authority of the teaching Church.

Wait, that sounds like I am saying that the Church does not propose "null set" doctrines she knows to be magisterially baseless. Yes, that's what I am saying. That she cannot have infallible certitude in the matter is irrelevant, she has sure grounds for hope, and she has the authority to present the doctrine without definitively resolving the question, just as Pope Eugene IV's infallible definition did not resolve the question of each and every possible category of those who might die in "original sin alone", or the possibility of hope by another unknown means other than water Baptism. That he personally favored the common opinion of the time is irrelevant to the definition itself.

But, it you want to make the argument that "hope" stands in opposition to a defined dogma of the faith, you will definitely fail.

So which is it?

As far as your "null set" fixation, its best to commiserate with Tornpage and continue to identify all of the possible "null sets" that correspond to undefined, and thus, reformable doctrines (open to development - some more than others - for what should be obvious reasons that seem to be lost on the "null set" contingent).

The fact that "universal salvation" has never been "officially condemned" being one such example. Who cares, and what has that to do with the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants?

But, since you guys are on a "null set" roll, consider this: Has the Church ever condemned or definitively ruled out the possibility of an adult (anyone who has reached the age of reason), who has never heard the Gospel, dying in original sin alone?

Why is it assumed that Pope Eugene IV is speaking only about unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped in his dogmatic definition about those who die "in original sin alone"?

It is true that St. Thoma Aquinas taught that a child who is cut off from the Gospel, upon reaching the age of reason will have to make an act of the will in choosing God, or not; and will either be immediately translated to a state of grace (meaning the remission of sins without explicit faith) or will fall immediately into mortal sin; but is this a certain truth? Haven't other theologians disagreed with Aquinas on this subject?

In other words, as some theologians have argued, is it possible that the circumstances effecting one's ability to hear the Gospel and other cultural restrictions might place certain youth who have reached the age of reason in the same category as infants and the mentally handicapped who cannot make an act of the will to choose God?

Has it been defined or definitively settled that only infants and the mentally handicapped can die in original sin alone, or is the question open? If open, is it another potential "null set"?

Does anyone really care, and MUST we ensure that every conceivable category of persons who may die in "original sin alone" cannot represent a "null set" if the dogmatic definition is to remain true, when the Pope himself has NO revealed or infallible pipeline to such knowledge?

Jehanne, you wrote:

The ITC never addressed the infallible declaration at the Council of Carthage. You, on the other hand, are trying to make that declaration say things which it did not say. It is possible that infants who are in Hell will simply experience the "pain of loss" without the "pain of the senses."

That's simply not true, for the ITC did address "the infallible declaration at the Council of Carthage" (see para. 19), and identified the explicit infallible passage that condemned the notion of an “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”.

However, I agree with you that when the ITC said "this council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism", for such a view can only be inferred by the part of the canon which says:

"what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left".

However, I agree with you that it is possible that Carthage does not rule out the possibility that infants who are in Hell will simply experience the "pain of loss" without the "pain of the senses", even if the cited passage would seem to militate against such a weak interpretation.

I retract my reference to "(Matt. 25: 41,46)" which was included at the end of my citation of the canon (more than once). After double-checking, I realize now that Deniznger does not include this citation, it comes from one of your favorite sites "romancatholicsm.org", and appears to have been added by the author of the article.

Though he placed the reference in brackets (preceded by cf.), he bracketed the other Scripture references as well, which were valid parenthetical references cited in Denzinger's rendition of the same authentic canon.

My apologies for not double-checking the source.

MRyan wrote:
The fact that "universal salvation" has never been "officially condemned" being one such example. Who cares, and what has that to do with the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants?

But if it is true, you will have to retract many of your accustions against certain opinions you consider pose a danger to the faith (and therefore to the salvation of souls), such as those you are now arguing against. It would mean that if the Church ever did proclaim universal salvation as a dogma, the only souls who could be lost would be those who refuse to believe the dogma; but then that would porve rthe dogma false.

Universal salvation must then be considered contrary to the faith and condemned as such.

columba wrote:For the post conciliar Church to suddenly change direction on this without any new theology being brought to bear must also be consiodered rash, and even moreso in our time when Baptism (since the promotion of baptism of desire) is considered in the psyche of many a modern-day Catholic to be not as necessary for salvation as once thought. To counter with the argument that those who think such thoughts would not cahmge their thinking even if the Church were to condemn it, is also rash, and would render all such condemnations on any matter of faith as useless interventions and exercises in futility.

This just demonstrates how little you understand, or how little you actually comprehend from reading the numerous theological papers and reports I've posted that clearly demonstrate that this is not a "sudden change" in "direction" and that there are legitimate Scriptural and Liturgical reasons, as well as "new" developments in existing theology that can justify the Church's current teaching on the doctrine of "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

I challenge you to read the actual theological precedents from St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, and then deny that these are not legitimate precedents; or to deny that the official sanctioning of the baptism of blood martrydom of the Holy Innocents is not a true development in doctrine, as even Fr. Harrison, who is not too keen on "hope", admits.

Additionally, your statement that "Baptism (since the promotion of baptism of desire) is considered in the psyche of many a modern-day Catholic to be not as necessary for salvation as once thought" is just as baseless today as it would be if someone had made the same specious accusations against the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, or agaisnt any of the many Catechisms throughout the centuries promoting the same doctrine, and making the same distinctions on "necessity" that the Church still makes today.

If you has been around at the time of the Council of Trent, you would be making the same baseless arguments against the Church and its Catechism, and its clear teaching that says:

"On adults ... The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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.

The only "psyche" out of whack is yours.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
The fact that "universal salvation" has never been "officially condemned" being one such example. Who cares, and what has that to do with the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants?

But if it is true, you will have to retract many of your accustions against certain opinions you consider pose a danger to the faith (and therefore to the salvation of souls), such as those you are now arguing against. It would mean that if the Church ever did proclaim universal salvation as a dogma, the only souls who could be lost would be those who refuse to believe the dogma; but then that would porve rthe dogma false.

Universal salvation must then be considered contrary to the faith and condemned as such.

I am getting tired of this "null set" inanity and the levels of fallacious silliness this "debate" has devolved.

I reject your specious accusations against whatever it is I am supposed to now "retract" if the doctrine of "universal salvation", in whatever form it takes, has never been officially condemned by the Church as heretical.

I agree that "Universal salvation must then be considered contrary to the faith", but that is an opinion, and I wish that the Church would "condemn" it, but she hasn't, at least not officially.

So when you say it should be "condemned" as being "contrary to the faith"; who has the authority to condemn it? You? Who cares?

Show me where the Church has magisterially and definitively condemned "universal salvation", or stop this posturing.

The Church will never and cannot ever "proclaim universal salvation as a dogma", and this is why you and Tornpage are off your collective rockers in thinking you can compare the doctrine of hope for unbaptized infants to a potential dogma of "universal salvation".

Don't be absurd, and use a little of the common sense God gave you.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Your "some truth is no truth" comment is one of those "rad-trad" sophism's that is supposed to stop us in our tracks with its unfailing wisdom; but in context, it is nothing more than a feel-good bumper sticker, campaign slogan and sound-bite with which to attack the Church's ecumenical initiatives.

You attack that phrase "Some truth is no truth at all" using the very principle contained in the phrase to condemn it.
If that comment of mine contains only some truth then it's really a distortion of truth and therefore is no truth at all, thus -like I say- you prove the very truth of that phrase while condemning it.

No, I did not "attack that phrase", I attacked your selective out-of-context use of it, just as I attacked your selective out-of context use of "Auctorem Fidei" with which you condemned VCII and the post conciliar Popes for "modernism", "treachery", "vicious lying", and "deceit" by using "ambiguous" language to ensnare the unsuspecting in order to destroy the Faith and to drag the Faithful to hell with them.

This has to be one of the most damning and disgusting instances of fallacious and corrupted cases of "reasoning" ever to come out of the warped rad-trad mind. That's why I dedicated a separate thread to it, to denounce this thoughtless arrogance for what it really is.

Your "Some truth is no truth at all" with which you condemn all ecumenical initiatives is just more of the same fallacious bluster.

See you on the "Auctorem Fidei and False Traditionalists" thread.

Mike,

It is true that St. Thoma Aquinas taught that a child who is cut off from the Gospel, upon reaching the age of reason will have to make an act of the will in choosing God, or not; and will either be immediately translated to a state of grace (meaning the remission of sins without explicit faith) or will fall immediately into mortal sin; but is this a certain truth? Haven't other theologians disagreed with Aquinas on this subject?

I know you don't particularly like subjecting Church teaching to logical scrutiny, but isn't it Church doctrine, even dogma perhaps, that all adults are given sufficient graces which call for choice, graces which are sufficient for salvation? I believe these would be called "actual graces." A person (an adult with the intellectual and volitional capacity of an adult) would either comply with these graces "by doing what he can" (Pius IX or the CCC, maybe both) and be saved, or be held responsible (damned) for rejecting the graces which would otherwise be sufficient for salvation.

Original sin would be out of the picture.

How do I know? Reason. Logic. Truth. Thinking with what God gave me. Extrapolating from the principles declared by the Church to be true. If I'm wrong, use the same gift from the Lord and show the error.

Vatican I

Chapter 4.
On faith and reason

5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.