Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, Article V:

"Hell"

As the pastor, by explaining the meaning of the word hell in this place may throw considerable light on the exposition of this Article, it is to be observed that by the word hell is not here meant the sepulchre, as some have not less impiously than ignorantly imagined; for in the preceding Article we learned that Christ the Lord was buried, and there was no reason why the Apostles, in delivering an Article of faith, should repeat the same thing in other and more obscure terms.

Hell, then, here signifies those secret abodes in which are detained the souls that have not obtained the happiness of heaven. In this sense the word is frequently used in Scripture. Thus the Apostle says: At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and in hell (Phillip 2:10); and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter says that Christ the Lord is again risen, having loosed the sorrows of hell. (Acts 2:24)

Different Abodes Called “Hell"

These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly so called.

Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. (Apoc. 21:27) The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare, (C. of Trent, Sess. XXV) on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.

Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell. (The Catechism of The Council of Trent, Tan, 14th Printing, 1982, pp. 62-63)

Strange, not single word about Limbo, not even in the “Index of Subjects”.

Anyway, Tornpage, good luck making case that the reform of the doctrine on unbaptized infants (offering hope) is analogous to a potential future “reform” of the doctrine of Hell, with respect to “is anyone actually in hell?”

Perhaps you should invite Gabriel back in order to dispute his belief that Hell will one day be a null set. Nothing “heretical” there, I suppose, but even he, a “universal reconciliationist”, does not deny the force of Scripture and Tradition on the existence of hell and the overwhelming tradition that says souls are condemned to its eternal punishments.

But please show us in Scripture where “Limbo” and the damnation of unbaptized infants is spoken about (John 3:5 is not very compelling evidence, though it confirms that even infants cannot be sanctified and saved without the grace of Baptism, in re, or at least in voto).

And, if I understand you correctly, there can be no development in the doctrine of desire (in validating "hope") by the Church that might extend to infants because this would mean a potential "null set" in Hell where those who die in original sin alone are punished (de fide). And if infants are not necessarily punished in original sin alone because God might save them, who is?

Hell of a way to re-write a dogma - the "Null Set Litmus Test". You should have it copyrighted.

But please show us in Scripture where “Limbo” and the damnation of unbaptized infants is spoken about (John 3:5 is not very compelling evidence, though it confirms that even infants cannot be sanctified and saved without the grace of Baptism, in re, or at least in voto).

You agree with the Prots then? Is Scripture - and not the teachings of the Church, which evidently don't tell us much beyond hypotheticals - the arbiter?

Perhaps there is true development of doctrine after all.

As for the rest of your post, it's not, well, very "logical" in its rebuttal.

Sorry.

tornpage wrote: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

You should know better than to say something as vapid as that. You might be joking, but it is simply not true.

tornpage wrote:
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.

No, we can site St. Thomas and the authority of the Doctors to affirm that sufficient grace is made available to all men, including infants, for salvation:

(e) St Thomas avers that salvation is available in some way at every age in the life of every human individual. But living in the womb is an age in the life of every human individual, since human embryos and human fetuses are already human individuals endowed with a human soul and with the faculties of intelligence and free will. Therefore, salvation must in some way be available to them, especially if they are facing death in the womb. But Baptism of water is not available, and so, some other means of salvation must be at hand.

(f) St Thomas maintains that, since 'it is in the power of a man to impede another man from being baptized with water', therefore, 'there can be salvation even without Baptism of water by faith and contrition alone.' But babies being killed in the womb are being prevented by the power of man from ever receiving Baptism of water. And, as innocent children, they have no need of contrition, while their faith can be supplied from the faith of the Church. Therefore, sanctification should in some way be available to them. (See "Mercy Reigns" thread, Abortion and Martyrdom, "Appendix: Sources in the Magisterium and St Thomas, John F. McCarthy)

The theological principles are there, and they look pretty solid.

tornpage wrote:Original sin would be out of the picture.

You mean for unbaptized infants? Only God knows, but we have no assurance that they will be saved apart from actual ablution.

tornpage wrote: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.

Your "logic" hasn't proven anything when it comes to your attempt at countering the authority and "logic" of the Church to justify her doctrine of "hope".

Her logic is simply superior to yours; she has an assistance you don't have. And I don't just "blindly" believe it, I demonstrate it.

tornpage wrote:

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.

I couldn't agree more. But tell me, Tornpage, are you suggesting that the magisterium is capable of violating this sacred inviolable bond between faith and reason in her official universal teachings on matters of faith and salvation, even if a particular teaching is not definitive?

Didn't Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger take Ab Lefebvre to task for accusing the Church of this very thing?

tornpage wrote:

But please show us in Scripture where “Limbo” and the damnation of unbaptized infants is spoken about (John 3:5 is not very compelling evidence, though it confirms that even infants cannot be sanctified and saved without the grace of Baptism, in re, or at least in voto).

You agree with the Prots then? Is Scripture - and not the teachings of the Church, which evidently don't tell us much beyond hypotheticals - the arbiter?

Perhaps there is true development of doctrine after all.

As for the rest of your post, it's not, well, very "logical" in its rebuttal.

Sorry.

You should be sorry, for your appeal is desperate and fallacious, and you know it. Just one logical fallacy after another.

tornpage wrote:

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.

No, we can site St. Thomas and the authority of the Doctors to affirm that sufficient grace is made available to all men, including infants, for salvation:

"No" what? Didn't I just say that? Or are you saying it's not Church doctrine or dogma that "all adults are given sufficient graces which call for choice, graces which are sufficient for salvation."

Her logic is simply superior to yours; she has an assistance you don't have. And I don't just "blindly" believe it, I demonstrate it.

If you did, I missed it.

tornpage wrote:
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.

But tell me, Tornpage, are you suggesting that the magisterium is capable of violating this sacred inviolable bond between faith and reason in her official universal teachings on matters of faith and salvation, even if a particular teaching is not definitive?

Didn't Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger take Ab Lefebvre to task for accusing the Church of this very thing?

We can talk about that later.

My quote of Vat I was a challenge to you to make your "demonstration".

I"m still waiting.

tornpage wrote:

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.

Agreed.

tornpage wrote: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.

Nonsense, original sin is not an “illusion” just because God might remove the stain of original sin for some or all unbaptized infants.

The logical fallacy here is awful.

tornpage wrote: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.

Everyone is a “child of Adam” and no one is exempt from original sin, so the only “children” you are talking about are unbaptized infants (and the mentally handicapped).

Furthermore, you imply that original sin, if the doctrine of "hope" is true, may be removed automatically by "virtue of the Passion" for every "child of Adam", when the virtue of the Passion must be applied (transmitted) to the soul by a means established by our Lord and His Church; otherwise, a means known to God alone can only be a "hope", and not an assurance of salvation.

Yes, one remains free to conclude that God may very well choose to save some or all unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped, leaving Gehenna for actual sinners; just as one was free to come to this same conclusion before the doctrine of hope was spelled out in the Catechism. But does that change the doctrine of original sin in any way, shape or form?

No, and your attempt to render original sin an "illusion" if the doctrine of hope is true - is a big time fail.

MRyan wrote:Yes, one remains free to conclude that God may very well choose to save some or all unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped, leaving Gehenna for actual sinners; just as one was free to come to this same conclusion before the doctrine of hope was spelled out in the Catechism. But does that change the doctrine of original sin in any way, shape or form?

No, and your attempt to render original sin an "illusion" if the doctrine of hope is true - is a big time fail.

Why, object, then, to the One and Triune God saving everyone, including, "actual sinners"? Or, do you object to Him doing that?

MRyan wrote:
Yes, one remains free to conclude that God may very well choose to save some or all unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped, leaving Gehenna for actual sinners; just as one was free to come to this same conclusion before the doctrine of hope was spelled out in the Catechism. But does that change the doctrine of original sin in any way, shape or form?

I'm of the personal opinion that God probably does save some (if not all) infants who die (apparently without Baptism) before the age of reason, and if He so does, it is without any contradiction to His infallible word on the necessity of Baptism for obtaining this salvation. This is easily reconciled with the "doctrine" of Hope if these infants are baptized (with water) miraculously, even though there be no present living witnesses to the act. Does this opinion of mine contradict any known Church teaching?

You Mike, believe that the hope for these infants lies not in actual sacramental Baptism but in another miraculous intervention by God whereby He chooses to save them without the sacrament. You've previously condemned my opinion by stating that God is not bound to use miraculous means to save whom so-ever He wishes, yet you appeal to another miraculous intervention in support of your opinion (and probably the Vat II opinion) that they receive the grace of Baptism without the sacrament.

MRyan wrote:
But please show us in Scripture where “Limbo” and the damnation of unbaptized infants is spoken about (John 3:5 is not very compelling evidence, though it confirms that even infants cannot be sanctified and saved without the grace of Baptism, in re, or at least in voto).

Where does John 3:5 mention "in re, or at least in voto"?

Nine pages; what was the topic again?

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.

Agreed.

If you agreed that original sin bars real, actual descendants of Adam from Heaven, you wouldn't have "hope" for all infants in light of Pope Eugene's infallible definition that souls who die with "original sin alone" depart immediately to hell to suffer punishments. You simply can't face the fact that the only possible individuals who could be in hell with "original sin alone" would have to be infants and/or the mentally deficient, so with your "hope" for infants you gut Pope Eugene's definition into a "null set" that has no one in it - since you do not argue that there is no hope for the mentally deficient, and that they are the ones in hell with "original sin alone."

You empty hell of those with "original sin alone," and therefore original sin is no bar to any child of Adam.

No, you don't agree.

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.

Nonsense, original sin is not an “illusion” just because God might remove the stain of original sin for some or all unbaptized infants.

I know the strategy well - it won't work.

What I said was "this consequence of original sin is an illusion," the consequence being the bar from Paradise/Heaven. I have just demonstrated that your "hope" does not bar anyone from Paradise as a result of original sin. An asserted bar that is not in fact a bar is an . . . ILLUSION.

This is getting tedious - but that's a big part of the strategy, isn't it?

Furthermore, you imply that original sin, if the doctrine of "hope" is true, may be removed automatically by "virtue of the Passion" for every "child of Adam", when the virtue of the Passion must be applied (transmitted) to the soul by a means established by our Lord and His Church; otherwise, a means known to God alone can only be a "hope", and not an assurance of salvation.

Did I say this is getting tedious? Indeed.

Alright, the "application" of the Passion to remove original sin is automatic, thereby automatically removing the consequence/bar of original sin for every child of Adam, since no one would be barred from Paradise by "original sin alone" (of course, the application would not be automatic and automatically remove the consequence/bar - is that better now? do you get it? - if the mentally deficient were barred; but you do not make that argument).

Sigh.

Yes, one remains free to conclude that God may very well choose to save some or all unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped, leaving Gehenna for actual sinners; just as one was free to come to this same conclusion before the doctrine of hope was spelled out in the Catechism. But does that change the doctrine of original sin in any way, shape or form?

If one came to that conclusion it would render Pope Eugene's definition a "null set," and indicate that no one descended to hell from original sin alone," which would be no bar to Heaven. I say that's a big change in the doctrine. Before the CCC, after the CCC . . . it makes no difference. And the Church - not just "one" - expressed that hope in the Catechism. The Church's expression of the "hope" in its official teaching indeed is a big change over any "one" expressing the hope individually - for obvious reasons. The Church never expressed that hope before.

Again, a failure to face the logical consequences of this "hope" with regard to original sin and Pope Eugene's definition.

I'm still waiting.

MRyan wrote:
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.

Well where are those "new developments"? If I remember correctly you stated that the Church has now decided to concentrate on hope (as oppopsed to those considerations that caused her previously to determine that this reliance on hope is at least rash). This is not development in theology; it is a decission not to take seriously the prior considerations.

MRyan wrote:
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.

I actually am very keen on hope and consider God's mercy going the extra mile in providing for these infants (so heinously slaughtered) with the indelible mark of Christ through the application of the waters of Baptism.

MRyan wrote:
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.

Then you haven't quite grasped the full extent of the incredulity of the Novus Ordo mindset.

If you ha[d] 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.

Hmm... But it doesn't say it will avail them to salvation. I'm a stickler for exact wording. but then, so are you.
I see nothing here that would cause me to be crititcal. I can always return to the Council itself for clarification as to the meaning contained in the Trent Catechism and nowhere do I find that salvation can be had without sacramental Baptism, for as trent says, "As it is written, 'Unless a man be born again etc..."

The only "psyche" out of whack is yours.

How so? Because I believe faith supercedes reason without contracting it?

MRyan wrote:Nine pages; what was the topic again?

Well. I suppose the heading is so general that it can include all contained in this thread.

How so? Because I believe faith supercedes reason without contracting it?

Re. My second to last post should read, "contradicting." ooops

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."

?

**Bumpety Bump**

Mike posted the following quote, which is spot on:

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)

Absolutely.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Yes, one remains free to conclude that God may very well choose to save some or all unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped, leaving Gehenna for actual sinners; just as one was free to come to this same conclusion before the doctrine of hope was spelled out in the Catechism. But does that change the doctrine of original sin in any way, shape or form?

No, and your attempt to render original sin an "illusion" if the doctrine of hope is true - is a big time fail.

Why, object, then, to the One and Triune God saving everyone, including, "actual sinners"? Or, do you object to Him doing that?

I haven't "objected" to what God may or may not do with respect to those He may or may not have saved.

But why “object”, then, to the One and Triune God withholding the efficacious grace of salvation, or the grace of final perseverance, to everyone, including "actual sinners", unbaptized infants and the mentally handicapped? After all, no one “deserves” Heaven, and the massa damnata deserve nothing except eternal damnation, right?

But let’s not let God’s universal salvific will and free will enter into the discussion; that might confuse things.

You and others have a real problem with 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," allowing us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism, don’t you.

I mean the very idea of “hope” for unbaptized infants sends screaming “null set” shivers of pain down the sensitive spines of the self-appointed salvation police who erupt with the most absurd and fallacious “logic” such as the “illusion” of original sin, the “denial” of Limbo, and the accusation that it “contradicted an infallible pronouncement” of the Church.

Rad-trad salvation fundamentalists do NOT like mysteries, so they do not like nebulous doctrines of “hope” spoiling their sacrosanct beliefs which define their crisp, immutable and “infallible” categories of the certainly damned, when, upon closer examination, these categories are not as sancrosanct, infallible, immutable or universal as they are commonly portrayed.

Think about it, this “debate” boils down our protagonists condemning the audacity of the Church for daring to suggest that God may save unbaptized infants, to which our resident salvation police tear their vestments in moral outrage because, don’t you know, if God chooses to save all unbaptized infants, those who die “in original sin alone” might actually be a “null set”, and Pope Eugene IV certainly would NOT have defined the dogma if he thought that God may choose a means unknown to the Church for removing the stain of original sin in these same unbaptized infants who are otherwise presumed to be lost.

And, bristling with smug confidence, they say go ahead and refute that “irrefutable logic” that says the “magisterium” of the Church is off her rocker and has taught “error” on a matter of salvation in its universal Catechism. Apparently, the Church remains oblivious to this irrefutable “null set logic” from which the doctrine of “hope” cannot escape, thus “proving” that there is NO hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

Of course, it should not surprise us that the Pope, the Catechism commission and the world’s Bishops have failed to see the “irrefutable null set logic” that kicks the legs out from underneath their audacious teaching on “hope”, for, as Fr. Harrison asked, is Pope Benedict XVI even aware of the “documents from Catholic tradition ruling out that “hope” which the new Catechism permits” … and “If he has trusted and depended on theological advice like that given him by the International Theological Commission, probably not.”

Incredible, but really, how credible is such a proposition? Isn’t this fall-back argument of “ignorance” and “bad advisers” getting a bit stale, especially against a theologian and Church historian as knowledgeable as Pope Benedict XVI who was studying these theological matters decades before Fr. Harrison decided to convert to Catholicism?

Sorry, but Pope Benedict XVI is most certainly aware of those same documents which are purported to “rule out” any doctrine of “hope”, and he knows something Fr. Harrison does not, they ruled out no such thing.

But, the rad-trad salvation fundamentalists have spoken, and we (and the Church) are left crushed beneath the irrefutable hammer of their “logic”, which amounts to nothing more than the "proving a negative" fallacy.

Mike .
In your above post you misrepresent the arguments of the "rad trad fundamentalists" by replacing them once again with your now famous strawman caricature.

There's realistic hope and there's false hope.
Realistic hope stays within the boundaries of already established doctrine; false hope ignores the boundaries and speculates far beyond them.
It appears (from the 'rad trad' perspective) that this post conciliar hope belongs in the latter category. That's what's being debated.

Mike,

I do not ever recall saying that universal salvation is heretical and/or that the Church has ever condemned it, only that there is a clear Tradition against it, without any condemnations of it. However, if Hell is devoid of those who end this life "with original sin alone," then it makes sense that it is devoid of those who end this life with "actual mortal sin." So, Hell constitutes a "null set" or at least we are "allowed to hope."

columba wrote:Mike .
In your above post you misrepresent the arguments of the "rad trad fundamentalists" by replacing them once again with your now famous strawman caricature.

There's realistic hope and there's false hope.
Realistic hope stays within the boundaries of already established doctrine; false hope ignores the boundaries and speculates far beyond them.
It appears (from the 'rad trad' perspective) that this post conciliar hope belongs in the latter category. That's what's being debated.

No, I don't think I've misrepresented the ""rad trad fundamentalists" who believe they are smarter than the Church, as your response confirms.

For what does "already established doctrine" actually mean, columba? To Tornpage, and apparently to you, it means the doctrine of "hope" "contradicted an infallible pronouncement” (Tornpage) of the Church.

And I say, rubbish, for how can the doctrine of hope "contradict" that which was never infallibly defined or definitively settled? It is infallible only in the sense that their perceived loss, and the punishment they may or may not receive (with the exception of loss of the beatific vision) cannot be opposed to the faith.

And, contrary to the claims of the rad-trad fundamentalist smarter-than-the-Church crowd, neither can the doctrine of hope be opposed to the revealed truth. Now, Jehanne and Fr. Harrison seem to have grasped this fundamental truth; leaving you and Tornpage and others, like J. Salza (who once claimed the doctrine of hope is "heretical"), alone with your specious accusations against the Church for "contradicting" an allegedly defined dogma.

Now, if you would like to argue that the prevailing view of the ordinary magisterium presumed the loss of unbaptized infants (and presumed a state of "natural happiness" in Limbo), that's fine; but once you cross the line and accuse the Church of being in heretical opposition to her own dogmas (which itself is heretical- yawn), you have lost any any all credibility, at least with me.

You speak to me of so-called irrefutable "null set" logic and "truth and reason" (with the Church accused of violating each of these) but run for cover whenever the inescapable logical conclusion of your accusation is presented (heresy) which violates the very infallible premise of "truth and reason" that the Church says she can never violate in her official teachings on faith and morals.

Such an smarter than the Church attitude leaves you mocking Pope Pius XII for daring to suggest that baptism of desire is not open to unbaptizedd infants, at least not in the present economy, by which he means the doctrine is reformable and the question remains open.

So this denial of a true development that you characterized as going from a so-called "realistic" (no hope) to the "false hope" of the magisterium is just that, a denial of the authority of the magisterium to develop this doctrine. Fr. Harrison errantly argues that the Church had no authority to develop the doctrine, but you and Tornpage take it one step further and tell us that the "false" doctrine of hope is opposed to defined dogma.

Of course, you've been doing this with baptism of blood and baptism of desire, so it does not surprise us that you envisage a Church which routinely denies her own dogmas.

No wonder you haven't a clue if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's true Vicar.

Hello, Mike & George,

Thanks to you both for your earlier responses to my question regarding praying for intentions of Holy Father, Indulgences and how this works with sede's/sede-leaning Catholics in gaining indulgences.

A couple of points I wanted to make:
1) In no way am I presuming to be able to judge the souls or ultimate salvation of others (nor would I want to do so). As regards indulgences, I can't even know that I am gaining the indulgences I hope for. However, one thing I know for certain is that I fulfill the requirement for praying for the intentions of the Holy Father (as well as confession, praying/performing indulgenced act, etc) however, am I truly not attached to my sins? Only God knows- I believe indulgences are harder to gain than not.

Which leads me to:

2) I always believed that when we say "pray for the intentions of the Holy Father" we are praying for his particular intentions for that month. for example: http://www.apostleshipofprayer.org/2012english.html or http://www.apostleshipofprayer.org/2012english.html which led me to my wondering how someone who rejects Pope Benedict (and the several previous Popes as well) as our valid and current Holy Father goes about trying to fulfill all of the requirements for gaining indulgences when one of these requirements is to pray for the Holy Father's intentions.

Or perhaps they just don't care about indulgences... or are trying to gain them in anticipation of some particular prayer intentions of some future pope someday.

Anyways, God bless and I hope you all have a great weekend!

Allie wrote:Hello, Mike & George,

Thanks to you both for your earlier responses to my question regarding praying for intentions of Holy Father, Indulgences and how this works with sede's/sede-leaning Catholics in gaining indulgences.

A couple of points I wanted to make:
1) In no way am I presuming to be able to judge the souls or ultimate salvation of others (nor would I want to do so). As regards indulgences, I can't even know that I am gaining the indulgences I hope for. However, one thing I know for certain is that I fulfill the requirement for praying for the intentions of the Holy Father (as well as confession, praying/performing indulgenced act, etc) however, am I truly not attached to my sins? Only God knows- I believe indulgences are harder to gain than not.

Which leads me to:

2) I always believed that when we say "pray for the intentions of the Holy Father" we are praying for his particular intentions for that month. for example: http://www.apostleshipofprayer.org/2012english.html or http://www.apostleshipofprayer.org/2012english.html which led me to my wondering how someone who rejects Pope Benedict (and the several previous Popes as well) as our valid and current Holy Father goes about trying to fulfill all of the requirements for gaining indulgences when one of these requirements is to pray for the Holy Father's intentions.

Or perhaps they just don't care about indulgences... or are trying to gain them in anticipation of some particular prayer intentions of some future pope someday.

Anyways, God bless and I hope you all have a great weekend!

Fatima? Jehanne? Columba? what is your thought process regarding indulgences?

Hi Allie,

I can only speak for myself.
I pray for the person who currently occupies the chair of Peter.
As I have my doubts concerning his legitimacy I make them known to Our Lord and Our Lady and offer my prayers for him as pope conditionally and pray that if he be not a legitimate successor of Peter that he be removed and converted.
Whether he be legitimate or not he's still a human being and I pray for his salvation.

A confirmed sedevantist might pray in a different manner.
Maybe Fatima for our Times can answer.

Allie wrote:Fatima? Jehanne? Columba? what is your thought process regarding indulgences?

If universal salvation is, indeed, true, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the recent Roman Pontiffs.

Jehanne wrote:

Allie wrote:Fatima? Jehanne? Columba? what is your thought process regarding indulgences?

If universal salvation is, indeed, true, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the recent Roman Pontiffs.

Typical sarcastic agenda-driven non-answer.

The answer suggests that the recent Roman Pontiffs taught universal salvation as a doctrine of the Church. If it has never been condemned, does that make it "true" because there are theologians and salvation reconciliationists who hold out "hope" for the salvation of all men, even when Scripture, tradition and the common faith of the faithful strongly militate against it?

Tell us, Jehanne, is that like saying if the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants is indeed true (there is indeed hope), "there is absolutely no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the recent Roman Pontiffs"?

If so, it's nice to know you are back in the fold and in full communion with the Roman Pontiff.

“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).

Jehanne has posted this several times.

Is this "infallible"? And what on earth do you think it means?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I do not ever recall saying that universal salvation is heretical and/or that the Church has ever condemned it, only that there is a clear Tradition against it, without any condemnations of it. However, if Hell is devoid of those who end this life "with original sin alone," then it makes sense that it is devoid of those who end this life with "actual mortal sin." So, Hell constitutes a "null set" or at least we are "allowed to hope."

That's fine, Jehanne, but if you wish to compare the "hope" of universal salvation with the "hope" of salvation for unbaptized infants (as you appear you do), as if Scripture is filled with explicit references to the damnation of unbaptized infants in like it is filled with explicit and numerous references to the fate (Gehenna) awaiting unrepentant sinners, go sell it to someone more gullible, I'm not buying it.

If the early Fathers, for example, did not have a solution to the perplexing non-revealed fate of unbaptized infants (e.g. St. Ambrose, "I do not know if they can have the honor of the kingdom", to include the early doctrine of St. Augustine who clearly wrestled with this), they had no such hesitation about the fate of grievous sinners, idolaters and fornicators. That there were some 8th century Eastern Fathers who speculated on an eventual "universal reconciliation" (apokatastasis) and the fact that "universal salvation" is taught today by liberal theologians, only demonstrates that it has never been condemned.

Of course, the fact that it has never been condemned, means, in your mind, that the Church might one day "define" it or propose it definitively as a universal doctrine.

Only when cows can fly.

If the early Fathers, for example, did not have a solution to the perplexing non-revealed fate of unbaptized infants (e.g. St. Ambrose, "I do not know if they can have the honor of the kingdom", to include the early doctrine of St. Augustine who clearly wrestled with this), they had no such hesitation about the fate of grievous sinners, idolaters and fornicators. That there were some 8th century Eastern Fathers who speculated on an eventual "universal reconciliation" (apokatastasis) and the fact that "universal salvation" is taught today by liberal theologians, only demonstrates that it has never been condemned.

You have one father, St. Ambrose, who said "I don't know," and how many do you have saying they are saved? Shall we tally up the numbers of those who said they were damned, who followed Augustine the "wrestler' in his ultimate judgment?

I warrant we have more fathers holding out for "universal reconciliation" than for the salvation of unbaptized infants. You already mention "Fathers," plural. How many do we have, again, saying unbaptized infants are saved?

I guess we as much hope for the salvation of mortal sinners among the Fathers as we do for unbaptized infants - seems they're either all in (universal reconciliationists), or . . . "I don't know." (St. Ambrose).

And yet you point to an abundance of Fathers holding out for the damnation of mortal sinners. Seems to me the numbers aren't any better for unbaptized infants - unless you want to make a mountain out of St. Ambrose's "I don't know."

But you have to go with what you have to go with, I guess.

It appears to me that the case, from tradition, for the salvation of mortal sinners (the universal reconciliationists) is as strong as for unbaptized infants.

St. Ambrose's "I don't know" doesn't exactly tip the balance.

I think Jehanne has a pretty good point.

tornpage wrote:

“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).

Jehanne has posted this several times.

Is this "infallible"? And what on earth do you think it means?

Gee, we've never discussed this canon before, have we!

But it is still a good question. Let me give it a whirl.

Yes, it's "infallible", but it is not a clear dogmatic definition. As a solemnly proposed condemnation, its positive inverse is infallible, but what, precisely, is the binding (defining) matter of faith?

Note the explicit qualifying reference to "if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my house there are many mansions: that for this reason "there will be some middle place or some place anywhere [In my house] where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism.".

This could very well mean there is no middle place, or anywhere else "In my house" where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism.

Hell is not anywhere "In my house", so it does not necessarily rule out a "happy place" in hell. Given the development in the doctrine of Limbo, this only makes sense.

Neither is Limbo a "middle place" between heaven and hell, if we are to include this condemned contingency in the interpretation (and I've read where Fr. Harrison said this is the common understanding).

However, as I pointed out on more than one occasion, while not "defined", note the clear inference to the torments in hell with the passage "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.

As I also recently posted, "[cf. Matthew 25,46]" is not included in Denzinger, it is an unauthorized addition by a former Third Order MICM Tertiary (not Jehanne) trying to prove that the entire canon is "de fide" (meaning, it is de fide that unbaptized infants suffer the eternal torments of hell).

Mike,

However, "in my house" is Heaven. If it is de fide, so much for the "hope" of "salvation" for infants. And yet the same authority 1500 (?) years later says we should have "hope" for the "salvation" infants. I simply don't understand how you can look at this, Carthage, and Florence as infallible and inerrant, and yet . . . This is but another piece in the puzzle that I am seeing erected before my eyes.

I'll ratchet down the tone here a bit.

Obviously, we disagree on the infallible definitions, and what they mean, and what the significance is of potential "null sets." In one way I completely understand your position, and it is "logical" with this proviso: that one accept the current magisterium as the Catholic Church, endowing that entity with what Catholic doctrine says that entity is endowed. However, I do not find the position logical on the basis of the definitions, and following the logical consequences of the definitions.

In short, the "logic" of your position relies upon tangential considerations - the infallibility of the Catholic Church, it's inerrant teaching authority as interpreter of the Gospel, etc.

It will come as no surprise that I do accept those "tangentials" on their face. Take them out of the equation and consider the issue(s) on their own merits, and I find inconsistency and, well, not the attributes of truth.

I see this not only on this issue, but also with regard to the universal salvific will as it is understood and advanced by the modern Churchmen and certain Catholic apologists at, for example, Called to Communion (as you know). We have engaged on that issue also; in fact, in this very thread. And the dispute on that issue, as with original sin, is brought into focus with "clinical precision" - great quote there that you found - in the matter of the fate of unbaptized infants.

So this discussion (and my recent involvement at CTC) only confirmed for me what I suspected all the while: the Gospel and the Catholic understanding of the same are not one.

So you see, I really don't care if this magisterium is advocating "heresy." This "magisterium" has ceased to hold authority for me such that I would bother over what it has to say. Yes, I was acutely aware of the implications of what I said.

For the second time in all of our exchanges - both recent examples, the first being on the universal salvific will - I see your replies as crossing over the border from apologia in defense of the Truth to attempts to justify and find anyway you can to defend what it is absolutely necessary for you to believe in and hold to.

Any further presence here by me would only devolve into my being the "in-house apostate," and into my preaching my contrary understanding of things to a bunch of faithful Catholics at this Catholic site.

God speed, old friend, and friends. I think I'm gone from here . . .

Adieu.

In Christ,

Mark (aka tornpage)

Concerning my time on earth, will I teach or imply hope to anyone that I come into contact with that they can be saved with Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire or that Baptism by Water is not absolutely necessary for salvation? Of course not! These only exist as possibilities in the hands of God. Do I believe that ALL Ex Cathedra decrees inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit are not only free from error but also free from the eternal possibility of error? Of course I do. Did each and every Ex Cathedra degree regardless of which century that it was proclaimed contain the strongest , most precise language spiritually possible for eternal and supernatural clarity? Of course it did. Can Ex Cathedra decrees be weakened, diluted or changed in such a way so as to in any way render any word or portion inaccurate? Of course not? Can Holy Mother Church further develop or give more understanding to an Ex Cathedra degree? Yes insofar as the degree in discussion remains fully intact and now formally and officially to be understood in an even more beautiful understanding with perfect and unchangeable continuity in thought. Do I think that there has been way too much speculation and dangerous opinions on Doctrine especially during the last half century? Yes and in most cases this has reduced the legitimate Church Militant to a very small number. What about unbaptised children,aborted children and those that possibly die only in original sin? I do believe and profess that these souls will go to the Hell of suffering or the limbo of milder suffering or possibly some calming eternal happiness exclusive of presence of God. This is not fully developed in the Church for me to grasp at this time; my time.

I will live my life in a very rigorist mode in compliance with what I say above. I will not water down centuries of teachings to chaos in convictions as Satan is trying to have us embrace. I believe that were it not for the protection by the the Holy Ghost for Our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that the Novus Order Mass and all of its rampant abuses would have destroyed the Church. There will be full restoration. OFFICIAL Church Doctrine is intact.

Do I believe that God is bound by His sacraments? The only answers that I can come up with is either, yes, no or I do not know. For me the answer is no. Who am I to bind the will of God to anything? It is because of this 'Hope' that I am comforted and allowed to pray and completely trust in God for the specific possibilities listed above. I can not fathom why anyone could be so selfish as to deny God to grant a stay of execution for aborted babies if that is His will, If it is not then I am at perfect peace and submission to Gods will in determination of each Souls eternity in Heaven, Hell or Limbo (if this is an option) even though I can not grasp it nor should I in this world. My lives readings, prayers and studies tell me that few are saved.

tornpage wrote:

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.

Agreed.

If you agreed that original sin bars real, actual descendants of Adam from Heaven, you wouldn't have "hope" for all infants in light of Pope Eugene's infallible definition that souls who die with "original sin alone" depart immediately to hell to suffer punishments.

You simply can't face the fact that the only possible individuals who could be in hell with "original sin alone" would have to be infants and/or the mentally deficient, so with your "hope" for infants you gut Pope Eugene's definition into a "null set" that has no one in it - since you do not argue that there is no hope for the mentally deficient, and that they are the ones in hell with "original sin alone."

You simply cannot face the fact that neither Pope Eugene IV nor any other Pope has any way of knowing with any infallible certainty whatsoever that God does not have the means or the will to remove the stain of original sin from those who through no fault of their own do not have recourse to water baptism, or can have "the desire for it".

You cannot face the fact that Pope Pius XII said that in the present economy these means are not open to infants, and you have no problem mocking the fact that “in the present economy” confirms that the final fate of unbaptized infants has never been definitively settled, a fact that you have the audacity to say is opposed to a defined dogma, revealing how little you know about this subject.

Those are the “facts”, and to argue that Pope Eugene IV would not have defined that those who die in original alone suffer the eternal punishment of hell if he thought for a minute that God might save unbaptized infants by a means unknown to the Church … is simply absurd.

tornpage wrote:You empty hell of those with "original sin alone," and therefore original sin is no bar to any child of Adam.

No, you don't agree.

I haven’t emptied hell of anyone, not of those who may die in original sin alone, and not of anyone else. The doctrine of “hope” leaves the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants open to God, who may or may not have these infants saved through the grace of Baptism (through the Church) by a means unknown in the present economy.

You do not get to dictate to me that I hold that there are no souls who die in original alone, for I have said no such thing, and cannot possibly “know” any such thing, except to say that I agree that there are souls who die in original sin alone.

tornpage wrote:

MRyan wrote

Tornpage wrote:
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.

Nonsense, original sin is not an “illusion” just because God might remove the stain of original sin for some or all unbaptized infants.

I know the strategy well - it won't work.

What I said was "this consequence of original sin is an illusion," the consequence being the bar from Paradise/Heaven. I have just demonstrated that your "hope" does not bar anyone from Paradise as a result of original sin. An asserted bar that is not in fact a bar is an . . . ILLUSION.

This is getting tedious - but that's a big part of the strategy, isn't it?

The only thing getting “tedious” is your null set logical fallacy. Original sin and the “consequence” of original sin mean the exact same thing when we are talking about the effect of original sin which bars anyone who dies in original sin alone (or otherwise) from heaven. This is an infallible fact, and the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants does not change this infallible fact.

Does the Church know with any certainty that God saves all infants who die in original sin alone? She does not, and even if she did, this does not change the fact that there are adults who might die in original sin alone, your “logic” be damned.

Tell us, Tornpage, what is the fate of a certain youth who becomes of age, has committed no mortal sins and desires baptism but whose contrition is not “perfect” (motivated more by attrition [fear] instead of a sincere contrition), and death overtakes him before he can receive Baptism?

Answer the question, oh savy sage and gate-keeper of “original sin alone”.

tornpage wrote:

Furthermore, you imply that original sin, if the doctrine of "hope" is true, may be removed automatically by "virtue of the Passion" for every "child of Adam", when the virtue of the Passion must be applied (transmitted) to the soul by a means established by our Lord and His Church; otherwise, a means known to God alone can only be a "hope", and not an assurance of salvation.

Did I say this is getting tedious? Indeed.

The only thing getting “tedious” is your blindness to the truth.

tornpage wrote:Alright, the "application" of the Passion to remove original sin is automatic, thereby automatically removing the consequence/bar of original sin for every child of Adam, since no one would be barred from Paradise by "original sin alone" (of course, the application would not be automatic and automatically remove the consequence/bar - is that better now? do you get it? - if the mentally deficient were barred; but you do not make that argument).

Sigh.

Yeah, your “sigh” should be an audible groan when you repeat such inanity. It is absolutely absurd to argue that the removal of original sin from unbaptized infants is “automatic” and that original sin is of no consequence IF God chooses to apply the merits of His Redemption to ALL such souls.

Again, answer the question about the youth (no “pagan in the woods”, he) who comes of age and dies with a less than perfect contrition before he can receive the valid Baptism he has every intention of receiving? What is the consequence of “original sin alone” (no mortal sins) in this particular situation?

If you cannot tell us with any magisterial certitude or with the testimony of firm tradition that this youth cannot die in original sin alone, this “debate” is over.

Mark,

Before you wander off into the null set world of pope-less heretical Catholicism, please answer the question I posed to you “about the youth (no ‘pagan in the woods’, he) who comes of age and dies with a less than perfect contrition before he can receive the valid Baptism he has every intention of receiving". What is the consequence of “original sin alone” (no mortal sins) in this particular situation?”

Very quickly, the fact that "in my house" is Heaven is de fide does NOT spell doom for the "hope" of "salvation" for unbaptized infants who, should God remove the stain of original sin, will reside in their Father’s House for all eternity. I simply cannot follow such convoluted “logic” that sees some sort of infallible "contradiction".

Your closed and errant private interpretation of Carthage and Florence is just that, closed and errant. Yet, you cannot see it. You must recognize the inescapable possibility that the defect lies most likely with you, and not with the Church.

You use words like “infallibility” without any context whatsoever, as if an authentic ancient dogmatic canon, the positive and infallible inverse of which is difficult to discern without the guidance of the Church, can be easily discerned by laymen. The fact that the Church has never understood the canon in the "infallible" sense you read into it, speaks volumes.

That you would suggest that in my replies you see me “crossing over the border from apologia in defense of the Truth to attempts to justify and find anyway you can to defend what it is absolutely necessary for you to believe in and hold to” is simply without foundation, and I reject outright any such notion.

If I infer that I have a firmer grasp of these complicated issues than you, I do not suggest this with any bravado whatsoever, I am simply telling you that I have no need to play games when it comes to such important matters. Far from trying to “justify” that which cannot be reconciled, I follow “truth and reason” where it leads without having to pretend that what the Church teaches is NOT the truth.

If there were a certain doctrine I did not understand and could not in my own mind reconcile with tradition (and this has happened), I would admit it; but to your point, I would not approach this from the standpoint of telling the Church she has erred; and that my inability to reconcile the truth must be because the truth cannot be reconciled with tradition.

It took me years to finally understand that the Church’s latest teaching on religious liberty, for example, is in magisterial accord with tradition, even if there are new elements of the doctrine which have been developed or brought to light – and have always been there.

Finally, your imperfect understanding of the universal salvific will of God (an imperfect understanding that drives you to distraction) is one in accord with your imperfect understanding of “original sin alone”. I cannot understand how such an imperfect understanding can lead you to conclude that the Church has erred in her “infallible” proclamations and has set doctrine against dogma.

My appeal to you not to take such a drastic step may go unheeded, but I ask you all the same. Your presence would be missed, especially by me.

I hope you will stay and I hope and pray you will pause before making any “final" decisions.

Your old friend, and brother,

Mike

tornpage wrote: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.

This is just one more example if the convoluted “logic” that passes for an alleged justification for accusing the Church of duplicity and error. Let’s place the cited text into context:

Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Monitum (warning), 18 February 1958: CLD 5: 409:

“In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism. Accordingly, this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible, according to the prescription of [1917 CIC] canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation.”

First of all, this monitum was issued with the approval and under the authority of the "Roman Pontiff", Pope Pius XII, the same pope who confirmed in his Allocution to mid wives that:

In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

Second, the monitum does NOT say that the hope of salvation CANNOT be without “foundation”, it is stressing the fact that “hope” is without that “solid foundation” that could in any way justify the “postponement” of infant baptism for unwarranted reasons. The logic, truth and continuous teaching of the Church in this regard is irrefutable.

Even when stripped of the qualifying and contextual “postponement of infant Baptism”, the monitum does not positively rule out the possibility of hope when it is without “solid foundation” … “in the present economy”; meaning, of course, that the matter was never definitively closed, and the Church has some latitude to develop the doctrine off “hope”.

Really, Tornpage, you will have to do better than that.

Tornpage wrote:
Any further presence here by me would only devolve into my being the "in-house apostate," and into my preaching my contrary understanding of things to a bunch of faithful Catholics at this Catholic site.

Tornpage,

My own thinking on the matter of apparent contradiction within Catholic teaching only becomes a real contradiction when not considered in relation to the times.

Something which Our Lady of La Salette said has always stuck in my mind concerning the plans of the evil one (the man of perdition) when he shall arrive on the scene, "who's only missiion will be to vilify faith;" not necessarily (which one would imagine) to cause an increase of sin to abound which in itself would seem a pretty good way to derstroy faith, but rather to set the axe at the very root of the faith itself. The problem with "the temptation to sin" strategy would be, as long as a sinner still has faith the sinner can repent and there would be less surity concerning his hoped for final damnation.

If one can first destroy faith, an automatic increase in sin will follow but with the added bonus of no repentance which the virtue of faith still intact would inspire.
I'm of the personal opinion that the full extent of the diaboliocal times in which we live has not fully been comprehended even by those of us who claim we have grasped the seriousness of the situation.

In a time when apostasy has become general it would be foolish IMO to believe that the Church would escape uncontaminated. In fact for an apostasy to become general in the first place, it would seem to me that it would have to originate within the Church. But how can a Church having the promise of indefectability become (from the onlookers point of view) apostate? My answer would be, by a false understanding (by the onlooker) of where her indefectability lies.

If the the scope of her indefectability can be artificially extended (which I believe it has), then the Church would appear to have defected with the result of rendering the promise of Our Lord false and making God to look as if He's a liar. If then the Founder of Our faith appears to be untrustworthy, the very faith itself cannot be trusted. Such I feel is the hope of the evil one who's war is primarily not with us but with God Himself.

In such times as these (as prohesied by Our Lord), even the elect would be deceived if that were possible (Matt 24:24). in consideraton of this it is necessary (again IMHO) -in these times- in order to find this indefectable Church, to understand where this indefectabilty lies.
As much as we are currently told (or at least being led to believe) that the inerrancy of the Church is guaranteed carte blanche over all her teachings regardless of their weight, if we restrict ourselves to considering only those teachings which are guaranteed to be absolutely error free, we will find that what we are left with are the dogmatic teachings as proclaimed from the chair of Peter to the whiole Church.

That's not to say that all other teachings are to be disregarded but rather, that in times like these we can expect that even those teachings that are orthodox in their content but not infallibly proclaimed, can be subject to poor and/or ambiguos presentation that can render them ultimately unreliable or even worse, dangerous to the faith, whereas the dogmatic (fallen from heaven) definitions are guaranteed to be pure both in content and presentation.

If it comes to the point where ones faith is shaken to the point where rejection of the faith seems a viable option, the last resort (or the extra mile) would be to strip the faith back to its solid foundations and cling to them alone.

Tornpage, I hope too that you'll stick around here even if your faith is being tested. I think everyones is. But what's the alternative? "And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)

Welcome to our newest member: RememberGethsemane

Very wise name choice. Two words which are at the heart of our possible Salvation.
...and so we all pray.


JMJ,

George

Mark, (aka: Tornpage)

With all due respect, I have to refuse your possible resignation. Do not despair. These are very difficult times. Smile, for this will pass. Continue to ask for Heavens help;it will not be denied to you.

God Bless you,

George

Mark,

I must agree with my esteemed colleagues. Go out to "Papal Encyclicals" sometime:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/

Have a look at all the Papal bulls/encyclicals, especially, those from the Middle Ages, and then have a look at the "Council" subcategory page off the main page -- "rinse and repeat" for those. Try to find a condemnation of universal salvation/reconciliation. Such a canon would have been really easy to write. Just consider that convoluted one from the Council of Trent:

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, 5th session, IV)

Wow, what a mouthful! Why not just say,

If anyone says that infants who die without sacramental baptism in Water are saved, let him be anathema.

What, a quarter of the words? Maybe less; haven't counted. Or, how about,

If anyone says that all men will be saved, let him be anathema.

Look, only one line! Or,

If anyone says that all infants who die without sacramental baptism in Water will be saved, let him be anathema.

Okay, two lines! I hope that you see my point here. Problem is that the "hope" offered by #1261 is now being cast as a "certain hope," which people are equating with "assurance" or even "absolute assurance." Note also that Carthage never included the word "sacrament" in their canon just "baptism"; perhaps they were trying to convey something a little more deeper.

Mike & Mark, and all interested,

With humility and prayer for your review. ( Thank you RG )


http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Tether.htm

Allie wrote:

Fatima? Jehanne? Columba? what is your thought process regarding indulgences?

Columba wrote:

Hi Allie,

I can only speak for myself.
I pray for the person who currently occupies the chair of Peter.
As I have my doubts concerning his legitimacy I make them known to Our Lord and Our Lady and offer my prayers for him as pope conditionally and pray that if he be not a legitimate successor of Peter that he be removed and converted.
Whether he be legitimate or not he's still a human being and I pray for his salvation.

A confirmed sedevantist might pray in a different manner.
Maybe Fatima for our Times can answer.

It has been said that if one prayed the three Hail Marys for the intentions of the Papacy or the Church it would be sufficient to gain the Plenary indulgence, but I’m not aware of any specific decree or writing on the topic. In any case, this question would not be particular to our own time, but would apply in any Papal Interregnum.

Regarding Ratzinger, he would be included in our rosary at the Fifth Joyful Mystery; Finding Jesus in the Temple, when we ask The Lord Jesus Christ through the intersession of The Blessed Virgin Mary, to convert us and help us amend our lives, and also to convert all sinners, heretics, schismatics and idolaters. We mention his name at times to pray for his conversion to the Catholic faith, not for his intensions as “pope,” since he is not a pope, but in fact, is a heretical AP. FACT.

As to almost everyone on this forum, who has read and listened to the arguments regarding the true position (sedevacantist position) we take in this Great Apostasy, I believe you have no excuse any more for remaining in the Vatican II counter church. The facts have been laid out, plain for all to see, thanks to the outstanding, uncompromising work carried out by Brother Michael and Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery. Like Sister Lucia said: It’s time to choose sides, either we are for God or we are for the Devil, there is no other possibilities.

The following prophecies made by Pope Saint Gregory The Great are proving to be true in our time and are being fulfilled before our very eyes. Although, a few here, I think, would disagree.

Promises made to the holy Father regarding the destiny of his Order and that of its friends and enemies:

1. His Order will continue to exist to the End of the World.

2. It will, at the End of the World, in the final battle, render great services to the holy Church and confirm many in the Faith.

3. No one shall die in the Order whose salvation would not be assured. And if a monk begins to lead a bad life and does not amend, he will fall into disgrace, or be expelled from the Order, or will leave it of his own accord.

4. Everyone who persecutes his Order and does not repent will see his days shortened or meet with an unfortunate end.

5. All, however, who love his Order will obtain a happy death.

I left out a few words from the above quote which is added below:

The following prophecies made by Pope Saint Gregory The Great about the Benedictine order are proving to be true in our time and, are being fulfilled before our very eyes. Although, a few here, I think, would disagree.

Promises made to the holy Father regarding the destiny of his Order (St. Benedict) and that of its friends and enemies:

1. His Order will continue to exist to the End of the World.

2. It will, at the End of the World, in the final battle, render great services to the holy Church and confirm many in the Faith.

3. No one shall die in the Order whose salvation would not be assured. And if a monk begins to lead a bad life and does not amend, he will fall into disgrace, or be expelled from the Order, or will leave it of his own accord.

4. Everyone who persecutes his Order and does not repent will see his days shortened or meet with an unfortunate end.

5. All, however, who love his Order will obtain a happy death.

.

I left out a few words from the above quote which is added below:

The following prophecies made by Pope Saint Gregory The Great about the Benedictine order are proving to be true in our time and, are being fulfilled before our very eyes. Although, a few here, I think, would disagree.

Promises made to the holy Father regarding the destiny of his Order (St. Benedict) and that of its friends and enemies:

1. His Order will continue to exist to the End of the World.

2. It will, at the End of the World, in the final battle, render great services to the holy Church and confirm many in the Faith.

3. No one shall die in the Order whose salvation would not be assured. And if a monk begins to lead a bad life and does not amend, he will fall into disgrace, or be expelled from the Order, or will leave it of his own accord.

4. Everyone who persecutes his Order and does not repent will see his days shortened or meet with an unfortunate end.

5. All, however, who love his Order will obtain a happy death.

.

Fatima for our times wrote:We mention his name at times to pray for his conversion to the Catholic faith, not for his intensions as “pope,” since he is not a pope, but in fact, is a heretical AP. FACT.

As to almost everyone on this forum, who has read and listened to the arguments regarding the true position (sedevacantist position) we take in this Great Apostasy, I believe you have no excuse any more for remaining in the Vatican II counter church. The facts have been laid out, plain for all to see, thanks to the outstanding, uncompromising work carried out by Brother Michael and Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery. Like Sister Lucia said: It’s time to choose sides, either we are for God or we are for the Devil, there is no other possibilities.

I don't know about anyone else, but my "revulsion meter" is pegging right about now.

Really, Rasha, I do not understand why you allow this trash-talking nonsense on this forum; I mean, he does not even have the decency to limit spreading his vile propoganda to the sede sub-forum.

Despite whatever differences I had with Pascendi, he had the good sense not to give sedes a platform from which they can attack the pope, the Church and Catholics at will, and without censor; and we can see the sycophant sect-following end-of-days babbling bumbkins this forum attracts.

Rasha, you clearly do not have time for the forum, and understandably so; so how about relinquishing some moderator control to someone like George (my vote), and allow us to have some say on the content and future of this forum.

I'm not saying that we must altogether ban sedevacantists (though I'm all for it), and I've never shied away from a real debate, but I'm all for banning the agenda-driven "convert or die" sect following sycophants. We shouldn't have to tolerate these copy and paste cretins who, when exposed to the light, are left writhing, clawing and foaming at the mouth in pure spittle spewing hatred.

If they want to drink the Kool-Aid; fine, but please spare us the indignity of having to put up with this schismatic spectacle.

Fatima For Our Times,

This Forum is dedicated to the owners mission statement and spiritual rules of engagement which you do not believe in for your path to Salvation:

The owner of this forum submits to the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, current Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church

I would urge you one final time to offer your thoughts and prayers and posts as if you were saying them for the first time to God and listen with a calm heart for the answer.
We are not entitled to an indefinite amount of spiritual help before the finite clock stops and transitions into eternity.

JMJ,

George

Jehanne wrote:Mark,

I must agree with my esteemed colleagues. Go out to "Papal Encyclicals" sometime:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/

Have a look at all the Papal bulls/encyclicals, especially, those from the Middle Ages, and then have a look at the "Council" subcategory page off the main page -- "rinse and repeat" for those. Try to find a condemnation of universal salvation/reconciliation. Such a canon would have been really easy to write. Just consider that convoluted one from the Council of Trent:

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, 5th session, IV)

Wow, what a mouthful! Why not just say,

If anyone says that infants who die without sacramental baptism in Water are saved, let him be anathema.

What, a quarter of the words? Maybe less; haven't counted. Or, how about,

If anyone says that all men will be saved, let him be anathema.

Look, only one line! Or,

If anyone says that all infants who die without sacramental baptism in Water will be saved, let him be anathema.

Okay, two lines! I hope that you see my point here.

I don't see your point; for the real point seems to have escaped you.

There is a reason why the Church is very precise in her formal condemnations, Jehanne, and the multiple errors the Church was refuting regarding baptism are very specific and very Protestant; hence, the "many words". Your mockery of the Church for not reducing these formal prescriptions into sound bites reflective of your version of the doctrine ("why not just say it like this”) is most revealing.

Jehanne wrote:Problem is that the "hope" offered by #1261 is now being cast as a "certain hope," which people are equating with "assurance" or even "absolute assurance." Note also that Carthage never included the word "sacrament" in their canon just "baptism"; perhaps they were trying to convey something a little more deeper.

So you wish to file a compliant with the CCC Complaint Department because some Catholics are “equating” the hope of salvation with the “assurance” and even the “absolute assurance” of salvation.

Before you file your complaint, is this a problem of poor Catechetics (and in some cases, a contrarian will), or is this a problem with the doctrine itself, which spells out rather clearly that “hope” is not “assurance”?

Perhaps you should also file a complaint with the Council of Trent Complaint Department because there are Catholics who equate “or the desire thereof” with a charity vivified by any nebulous natural inclination to do good, instead of supernatural faith; just as there are Catholics who equate the same passage with a justification that can only be realized through actual water ablution.

Of course, we can go on and on, but I think you get my drift.

Those who have a "problem" reading and understanding #1261 are the ones with the "problem", the "problem" is not with the Church.

So Jehanne,


Is this your prayer?

Dear God, I know that Jesus taught that we must all be baptised with water with no exceptions and while I am praying I also hope and pray that all aborted babies and unbaptised infants may also be denied your vision. I hope this is certain. Please answer my hope and prayers.... ??????????????????

Jehanne,

Since Tornpage seems to have left the premises, I would be interested in your response to my challenge to him that goes like this:

What is the fate of a certain youth who becomes of age (no "pagan in the woods", he), who has committed no mortal sins and desires baptism but whose contrition is less than “perfect” (motivated more by attrition [fear] than by a sincere or "perfect" contrition), and death overtakes him before he can receive Baptism?

Can anyone state with any certitude whatsoever (from the ordinary magisterium and tradition) that such a classification of non-infant souls (with the use of reason) who may "die in original sin alone" does not and cannot exist (a null set)?

Is such a soul capable of departing this life in original sin alone (i.e., no mortal sins - venial sins cannot be cause for eternal punishment), and if so, will he not suffer the punishment of hell, even if a mild sense suffering ("disparate punishments") for original sin (alone)?

If so, where is the "null set" of souls who die in "original sin alone"?

Thanks.

George Brenner wrote: So Jehanne,

Is this your prayer?

Dear God, I know that Jesus taught that we must all be baptised with water with no exceptions and while I am praying I also hope and pray that all aborted babies and unbaptised infants may also be denied your vision. I hope this is certain. Please answer my hope and prayers.... ??????????????????

Come now, George, I am "certain" Jehanne has no such "hope and prayer". Let's stick with defending one's understanding of the true doctrine, rather than attributing to someone a hope and prayer that includes the "certainty" of damnation.

Mryan wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but my "revulsion meter" is pegging right about now.

Mike's revulsion meter pegs with every poster who doesn't agree with him so if we base decisions on his out of control meter he might be the only one left here.

Get it recalibrated Mike.

Really, Rasha, I do not understand why you allow this trash-talking nonsense on this forum; I mean, he does not even have the decency to limit spreading his vile propoganda to the sede sub-forum.

Doesn't everyone spread their own propoganda according to what they believe, all of which appears on the main formum.

Despite whatever differences I had with Pascendi, he had the good sense not to give sedes a platform from which they can attack the pope, the Church and Catholics at will, and without censor; and we can see the sycophant sect-following end-of-days babbling bumbkins this forum attracts.

And Pascendi ended up silencing you with a ban which I didn't particularly agree with but hey, it was his forum, his call.
If this forum attracts "sycophant sect-following end-of-days babbling bumbkins," remember that you Mike are the top poster here.
And talking of sycophants, did you read the latest Mryan fan club posts?

Rasha, you clearly do not have time for the forum, and understandably so; so how about relinquishing some moderator control to someone like George (my vote), and allow us to have some say on the content and future of this forum.

Everything's terrible here because Mike took offense at a poster who might post a max of 3 messages every six months.
If they offend you why not ignore them.

If a moderator be necessary I would recommend DeSelby. He hasn't to date shown any partiality or signs of syncophancy.

I'm not saying that we must altogether ban sedevacantists (though I'm all for it), and I've never shied away from a real debate, but I'm all for banning the agenda-driven "convert or die" sect following sycophants. We shouldn't have to tolerate these copy and paste cretins who, when exposed to the light, are left writhing, clawing and foaming at the mouth in pure spittle spewing hatred.

Convert or die has always been the Christian message. If someone believes that souls are being led astray by a false Catholicism it would not be "hatred" to tell them so. In fact if one were to follow the creed and morals of many of the legitimate/legitimized pastors of what is considered mainstream Catholicism, there's a good chance he may be right in that they'll all go down to the pit together.
Most members here are capable of following the arguments and determining for themselves as to where they believe the rot stops.

If they want to drink the Kool-Aid; fine, but please spare us the indignity of having to put up with this schismatic spectacle.

If he's wrong he's schismatic and probably only materially so at that. It's for you and Simple Faith etc to show him where he's wrong. You won't do that by banning him and to date your arguments against his position have been far from conclusive.
Sedevacantism is now openly discussed on nearly all Catholic Forums with the exception of CAF. You may have to retreat there if you wish to escape those annoying sede's, but you might well end up a Protestant if you do, or even worse, a NeoCath.

George Brenner wrote: So Jehanne,


Is this your prayer?

Dear God, I know that Jesus taught that we must all be baptised with water with no exceptions and while I am praying I also hope and pray that all aborted babies and unbaptised infants may also be denied your vision. I hope this is certain. Please answer my hope and prayers.... ??????????????????

More accurately I would suggest George that Jehannes prayer would be similar to mine;

Dear God, I know that Jesus taught that we must all be baptised with water with no exceptions; therefore I pray for the souls of all aborted babies and unbaptised infants that, by the infinite merits of Your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the prayers of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, they may be washed in the saving waters of Baptism, for with God, all things are possible. Amen.

MRyan wrote:

George Brenner wrote: So Jehanne,

Is this your prayer?

Dear God, I know that Jesus taught that we must all be baptised with water with no exceptions and while I am praying I also hope and pray that all aborted babies and unbaptised infants may also be denied your vision. I hope this is certain. Please answer my hope and prayers.... ??????????????????

Come now, George, I am "certain" Jehanne has no such "hope and prayer". Let's stick with defending one's understanding of the true doctrine, rather than attributing to someone a hope and prayer that includes the "certainty" of damnation.

Ultimately, "What is, is." By the way, Mike, please provide a citation for the St. Ambrose quote that you gave earlier where he said that he does "not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom." I can't find it.

Again, we're back to the "null set" thingy which Mike is ready to accept for infants who die without Baptism but seems unwilling to accept for adults who die with serious mortal sins; the latter he ridicules, but not the former. I am certainly okay with both; who wouldn't be? However, does such a view represent reality? Maybe, maybe not; the Church has never condemned universal salvation, either for infants or for adults. Still, the opinion of Saint Thomas Aquinas is that Hell is neither empty of infants who end this life with original sin and with adults who end it with mortal sin.

"Time will tell," I suppose...