Baptized Catholic, always Catholic

[mosher]

Mayo-man:

Very interesting thread and right on target for my question. The point is EXACTLY what is so special about “Catholic Baptism”?
Your thread instructs pretty clearly that any so baptised are also bound in a special way to the Catholic Church [and no other] irreversably.

It is amazing to me that I am 60 years in the pews and only now the more troubling aspects of this teaching interupts my enjoyment of all things Catholic. Of course, I have mistakenly thought I was raising Catholic children,

Sorry, I’m not so scholarly as to add much insight on topic, just a troubled father of baptised Catholic children who have “defected” by Lutheran marriage from their Catholic heritage [which I can testify, without fear of contradicton, was the full expression of Catholic life…committed Catholic parents, all sacraments, weekly mass, years of massive involvement in parish life and exclusively “catholic educations” at a very dear price for four children [two now Catholic, two Lutheran]. Obviously, it did not work for at least two of these “defectors”. To late have I head the words “home school”. And now…

“Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” provides a whole new dimension to “sins of the father” in choosing infant baptism in the Catholic Church, since that Church now retains my Lutheran children [against their will] as “Catholic” with all the obligations of Canon Law and the Catechism.

Considerable violence is done here to the “free will” of the infant who may or may not accept the Catholic Church upon majority [as I believe is their right]. Sill, bound is bound [for sure, in the eyes of the Church]. And so, I ask: By what right does the Catholic Church retain them and bind them so? If this is part of the “deposit of faith” then I, and not my children, have the more serious problem for it was my choice, not theirs . Nor do I consider it my right to have so bound them.

I have no intention of high-jacking the thread and apologize if this is wrongly added here. It’s just a view from the pews. Some insight would be appreciated since this is not like baseball where a 50% average is considered excellent.

Jim B

Truth cannot bind unless a person rejects truth. However it is not the truth that binds them in the rejection but rather it is the rejection itself that does violence to the freedom of the person choosing against truth. When it comes to matters as serious as faith it is not a matter of choice for the person. Choice does not come into the discussion when concerning faith. Faith is a gift from God and we choose to use that gift or not use that gift. Similar to the parent standing in proxy for their child in baptism. It is a gift that you give your child. However, as time goes on it is their gift and they have the freedom to choose to use that great gift or to reject that gift. We cannot afford, in the economy of salvation, to deprive our children of the fullness of truth - we do not have that right. Yet, as they become their own person we must allow them to make their own choices for good or for ill.

 

[Sean_O_L]

mosher wrote:

the dogma that the concept of Limo is gleaned from is the Dogma that states “Those who die without baptism are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.”

Well, to be precise (and you speak later of a “level of clarity”) - the Dogma is not as you present it:

“§25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide)”
“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Ludwig Ott, Tan, 1974, p. 113.

There are subtle differences between the two versions - one of the subtlies is provided by Dr. Ott in the same work, page 114:

“Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire - Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason at the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire - H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering - H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proven from Revelation. Cf. Denz. 712.”

You wrote:

I don’t think that the side step that is made in the current Catechism or the discussion by current theologians answer this question with any level of clarity.

Well, I think it is as clear as is possible in the light of varying unprovable theological possibilities - the Church just doesn’t know with certainty, and places the matter in God’s hands.

In any event, I have just uploaded an 1885 article on Limbo which may provide further help:
jloughnan.tripod.com/limbo.htm

 

[mosher]

Sean O L:

mosher wrote:

Well, to be precise (and you speak later of a “level of clarity”) - the Dogma is not as you present it:

There are subtle differences between the two versions - one of the subtlies is provided by Dr. Ott in the same work, page 114:

You wrote:

Well, I think it is as clear as is possible in the light of varying unprovable theological possibilities - the Church just doesn’t know with certainty, and places the matter in God’s hands.

In any event, I have just uploaded an 1885 article on Limbo which may provide further help:
jloughnan.tripod.com/limbo.htm

Thank you for quoting Ott. You are correct in saying that there are subtilties in the wording which leaves room for extrodinary means but those extrodinary means are limited to particulars. This is the problem. The modern view that is being given is a universal statement on extrodinary means as opposed to the particular statements. Also, the view given of Limo is given us from early patristic times. Augustine even argued that those who died in a state of original sin suffered “poena sensus” aswell. This was rejected but the Church in many different ways has affirmed the instance of Limbo time and time again. It seems that the statement of “leaving it to the mercy of God” is just a way of saying that Limbo could be part of that mercy but we don’t want to talk about it because Limbo is really part of hell and we don’t want to tell anyone that their child or loved one may be in hell.

 

[Sean_O_L]

mosher wrote:

Augustine even argued…

Indeed - and St Thomas Aquinas even argued against the Immaculate Conception (and other saintly theologians also!).

Indeed, one might say that it is a part of the “job description” of theologians to have “opinions” and to “argue.” In the case of those who argued against the Immaculate Conception - this was permitted up to the time of the Definition; and those very same opponents (if they lived after that Definition, would have conformed their wills to that Definition.

To this point of time - there is NO definition on Limbo, and so, the arguments may continue. But, I think that they have run their course on this thread?.

 

[mosher]

Sean O L:

mosher wrote:

Indeed - and St Thomas Aquinas even argued against the Immaculate Conception (and other saintly theologians also!).

Indeed, one might say that it is a part of the “job description” of theologians to have “opinions” and to “argue.” In the case of those who argued against the Immaculate Conception - this was permitted up to the time of the Definition; and those very same opponents (if they lived after that Definition, would have conformed their wills to that Definition.

To this point of time - there is NO definition on Limbo, and so, the arguments may continue. But, I think that they have run their course on this thread?.

Correction - Thomas did not argue against the Imaculate Conception that is a Catholic Urban Legend. Rather his position was that he could not prove it via his systematic method and thus could not contribute to the definition of the Dogma.

Second, in Ott you will see that the question of Limbo has been addressed by more than one councel in particular the Coucil of Florence argued in favor of the “poena sensus” but the Pope rejected this and sided with this opinion of only having the “poena damni.” While it is true that no formal definition has been given it is also true that it has been part of the mind of the Church since patristic ages so it seems that it would be more fitting to side with the a consistant opinion then otherwise until there is a formal movement away from the doctrine of Limbo.

 

[ChibiViolet]

This is very stange to me…this means that if someone is baptised as a baby and becomes a Satanist later in life, than they are a “Catholic Satanist…” This concept, though true is beyond me…this is especially strange for me to think about when I think about a (thankfully short) period of my life, when I was an independant Satanist (and no longer considered myself a Catholic.)

 

[x1980x]

This is very stange to me…this means that if someone is baptised as a baby and becomes a Satanist later in life, than they are a “Catholic Satanist…” This concept, though true is beyond me…this is especially strange for me to think about when I think about a (thankfully short) period of my life, when I was an independant Satanist (and no longer considered myself a Catholic.)

I think some people would see this as a human rights issue.

 

[mosher]

I think some people would see this as a human rights issue.

Why?

This is very stange to me…this means that if someone is baptised as a baby and becomes a Satanist later in life, than they are a “Catholic Satanist…” This concept, though true is beyond me…this is especially strange for me to think about when I think about a (thankfully short) period of my life, when I was an independant Satanist (and no longer considered myself a Catholic.)

Being Catholic has never been linked with behavior. Being Catholic, that is, being Christian has nothing to do with our actions. Rather, it is the action of God through the Sacrament of Baptism that forever recreates us – makes us a new creation (literally). That is what makes us Catholic. How we behave as a Catholic is a separate matter.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is very stange to me…this means that if someone is baptised as a baby and becomes a Satanist later in life, than they are a “Catholic Satanist…” This concept, though true is beyond me…this is especially strange for me to think about when I think about a (thankfully short) period of my life, when I was an independant Satanist (and no longer considered myself a Catholic.)

Baptism makes us adopted children of God, adopted brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. Once we are adopted into God’s family, we are His family no matter what.

Children might disown their parents but the parents do not have to disown them.