Can infants be sanctified in the womb?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itsjustdave1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
bear06:
Ok, now how about women who died before the instution of the sacrament? They were not circumcized? Sarah, Ruth, etc.?
Click to expand...
Not part of the Law. Simple. Females were in the covenant via their father.
Again. Why co-mingle OT figures with the NT Sacrament of Baptism as the NEW Law???
It also just occured to me that Herod’s instructions were that all children 2 years and under were to be killed.** It would then be logical that some newborns under 8 days old** were also killed thus more children who did not fulfill the Mosaic law.
Click to expand...
Maybe some were. So what?. We still have the Canonization of “Holy Innocents” no matter how few or many.
Also, it is assumed that all of the children in Bethlehem at the time were Jewish. Is this a known fact?
Click to expand...
He was only after the Jewish, since “The Heir of David” was the target. Not Greek or Roman pagans. Yes, they could tell the difference. Remember when Moses was found as an infant? No one was fooled or confused about ethnicity.
 
For infants who have not yet received sacramental baptism prior to death, God may very well enlighten them at the moment of death and enable them to make a choice for or against him. This possibility was endorsed by the nineteenth-century Catholic theologian Heinrich Klee.

Or perhaps these persons may have a form of “baptism of desire” through the desire of their parents, of the Church, or of someone else. This would operate the way the faith of the Church suffices to allow infants to be baptized, even though they lack faith themselves. This idea (“vicarious baptism of desire”) was endorsed by Cardinal Cajetan at the time of the Reformation.

There have been many pius opinions on the matter well before Evangelium Vitae. It was not heresy in Cardinal Cajetan’s day (after the Council of Florence), and there doesn’t seem to be any convincing evidence that it is heresy today.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
For infants who have not yet received sacramental baptism prior to death, God may very well enlighten them …
Click to expand...
Read the JPII quote.
nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from*** your child***, who*** is now living in the Lord***" (99)

It is one of certitude, NOT speculation. BIG difference.
 
40.png
TNT:
Read the JPII quote.
nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from*** your child***, who*** is now living in the Lord***" (99)

It is one of certitude, NOT speculation. BIG difference.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. As I said above, Pope John Paul II, in accord with the authentic authority that God has given him, has moved this theology from free opinion to *sententia certa. *

Are you denying the Vicar of Christ authority to do such a thing? If so, why and by what authority that you possess gives you the power to deny the Vicar such authority in matters doctrinal?

That’s how doctrinal development works…

"Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7 : quantum ad explicationem crevt numerus articulorum (fidei), quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicite. There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.) " (Ott, introduction)
 
Maybe some were. So what?. We still have the Canonization of “Holy Innocents” no matter how few or many.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Church says some were canonized and some weren’t. Are you saying that the ones who weren’t circumcised weren’t?
 
40.png
bear06:
I don’t think the Church says some were canonized and some weren’t. Are you saying that the ones who weren’t circumcised weren’t?
Click to expand...
You slip from logical to certitude…clever, eh?

I already showed you where it is just as logical to say otherwise. Scripture is silent. Therefore it remains forever, in this life, unknown. NOT certitude.

Still fooling around in the OT speculation to certify the NT Sacrament does not work well at all. Try something more convincing. 😉

My prophecy from post #8:
Alas, I am not out of harm’s way. Wait til mama Bear06 gets home and checks my posts. All “hell” will break loose.
Keep my lefty flank covered.
Click to expand...
 
I already showed you where it is just as logical to say otherwise. Scripture is silent. Therefore it remains forever, in this life, unknown. NOT certitude.
Click to expand...
But I thought it was your belief that the teachings of the Council of Florence are applied to all of the unborn? That it is a forgone conclusion?

Get it yet? Your above statement proves my point perfectly.

Not only that, the fact that OT females were entered into the Mosaic dispensation (just out of curiosity, where do you find this teaching) via somebody else also proves my point.

It is unclear if or what exceptions are made. Besides this, as Dave has already pointed out, there have been pre-VII Popes who have seemed to contradict the statements made in Florence.
 
40.png
bear06:
But I thought it was your belief that the teachings of the Council of Florence are applied to all of the unborn? That it is a forgone conclusion?
Click to expand...
One more time, then no more. Ready:
The NT Church speaks for NT theology at Florence. Not the final destiny of OT figures.
The Holy Innocents were MARTYRED for the sake of Christ in the flesh.
The End of OT shenanigans.
 
40.png
TNT:
One more time, then no more. Ready:
The NT Church speaks for NT theology at Florence. Not the final destiny of OT figures.
The Holy Innocents were MARTYRED for the sake of Christ in the flesh.
The End of OT shenanigans.
Click to expand...
Either way it doesn’t matter. The Council of Florence was not addressing the fate of OT figures. I’m well aware of the Limbus Patrum. It is not a non-sequiture because I’m not making any statements regarding OT figures. I’m making a statement regarding the CoF. The CoF was not speaking to the issue of OT figures, nor was it speaking to the issue of unborn infants. It was speaking to the issue of the necessity of baptism.

By saying that OT figures are a non-sequiture, you are proving my point that the CoF is a non-sequiture regarding the fate of aborted infants. Just as you are insisting that the CoF was not speaking to the fate of OT figures, we are saying that the CoF was not speaking to the issue of aborted infants.

Now… The End of Council of Florence shenanigans.😉
 
I just think it very interesting that there are at least 3 dispensations for
1)OT people
2)Baptism by blood
3)Bapstism by desire

Not all of these dispensations were proclaimed by the Church at the same time and yet some of you think you know for sure that there will be no further dispensations proclaimed.

As long as it is something good as all the aborted, miscarried, etc. being granted God’s mercy(we should all be able to say this would be a glorious thing), I will continue to hope and pray that this is the case.
 
40.png
bear06:
As long as it is something good as all the aborted, miscarried, etc. being granted God’s mercy(we should all be able to say this would be a glorious thing), I will continue to hope and pray that this is the case.
Click to expand...
It would, without a doubt, diminish the egregious level of the sin of abortion… After all, if you get an abortion, and are in doubt about a soul in a fetus, at least you are putting a soul (if it has one) , with certainty, into heaven.
Only a bodily lose remains. The Newchurch concentration on the possibility of universal salvation, makes this idea completely consistent.
Somehow, it seems like an incentive for, not against abortion by just about anyone who wants to justify their conscience.
This would be especially true for the rape and incest pregnancy as well as marginal “christians”
Way back when, the denial of many sects of the salvational efficacy of baptism, has led to countless youngsters dying not entering the Kindom of Heaven. But, The Newchurch is working on that I’m sure.
Finally, if “God’s Mercy” as you say overwhelms in this instance, it would only be logical to have that same “Mercy” prevail to all unbaptised who die before the age of reason. Billions of parents have no belief whatsoever in baptism.
I had a 4yr old grand nephew recently die by falling into a pit with a concrete floor…DOA. His parents are Mormon… They grieved greatly, but not because he was not in their heaven, as they believe he certainly was, from their belief.
 
40.png
TNT:
It would, without a doubt, diminish the egregious level of the sin of abortion… After all, if you get an abortion, and are in doubt about a soul in a fetus, at least you are putting a soul (if it has one) , with certainty, into heaven.
Only a bodily lose remains. The Newchurch concentration on the possibility of universal salvation, makes this idea completely consistent.
Somehow, it seems like an incentive for, not against abortion by just about anyone who wants to justify their conscience.
This would be especially true for the rape and incest pregnancy as well as marginal “christians”
Way back when, the denial of many sects of the salvational efficacy of baptism, has led to countless youngsters dying not entering the Kindom of Heaven. But, The Newchurch is working on that I’m sure.
Finally, if “God’s Mercy” as you say overwhelms in this instance, it would only be logical to have that same “Mercy” prevail to all unbaptised who die before the age of reason. Billions of parents have no belief whatsoever in baptism.
I had a 4yr old grand nephew recently die by falling into a pit with a concrete floor…DOA. His parents are Mormon… They grieved greatly, but not because he was not in their heaven, as they believe he certainly was, from their belief.
Click to expand...
Those are utterly ridiculous conclusions, and not just a little infuriating. You are making the claim that our hope is a secret justification for murder? You are so quick to bring judgment down on others and put the most fowl words in other’s mouths.

In addition, you have failed to address the above comments. Making one position a premise, and then creating another premise in order to draw an erroneous conclusion not held by the other side, is not an honest method of debate.
 
40.png
TNT:
It would, without a doubt, diminish the egregious level of the sin of abortion… After all, if you get an abortion, and are in doubt about a soul in a fetus, at least you are putting a soul (if it has one) , with certainty, into heaven.
Only a bodily lose remains. The Newchurch concentration on the possibility of universal salvation, makes this idea completely consistent.
Somehow, it seems like an incentive for, not against abortion by just about anyone who wants to justify their conscience.
This would be especially true for the rape and incest pregnancy as well as marginal “christians”
Way back when, the denial of many sects of the salvational efficacy of baptism, has led to countless youngsters dying not entering the Kindom of Heaven. But, The Newchurch is working on that I’m sure.
Finally, if “God’s Mercy” as you say overwhelms in this instance, it would only be logical to have that same “Mercy” prevail to all unbaptised who die before the age of reason. Billions of parents have no belief whatsoever in baptism.
I had a 4yr old grand nephew recently die by falling into a pit with a concrete floor…DOA. His parents are Mormon… They grieved greatly, but not because he was not in their heaven, as they believe he certainly was, from their belief.
Click to expand...
Those are utterly ridiculous conclusions, and not just a little infuriating. You are making the claim that our hope is a secret justification for murder? You are so quick to bring judgment down on others and put the most fowl words in other’s mouths.

In addition, you have failed to address the above comments. Making one position a premise, and then creating another premise in order to draw an erroneous conclusion not held by the other side, is not an honest method of debate.
 
Théodred:
Those are utterly ridiculous conclusions, and not just a little infuriating. You are making the claim that our hope is a secret justification for murder? You are so quick to bring** judgment** down on others and put the most fowl words in other’s mouths.

In addition, you have failed to address the above comments. Making one position a premise, and then creating another premise in order to draw an erroneous conclusion not held by the other side, is not an honest method of debate…
Click to expand...
The issue is quite well addressed: Sanctification of the unborn.
It addresses the consequences, which a liberal denies anyway.
Only a disoriented Liberal who lives by sentimentalism would disagree. Those I cannot help.
Unless you are having an abortion, or were involved in one, it could hardly be: “our hope is a secret justification for murder?"…loony.
In any case, if a person were to counsel with you, would you be honest enough to tell them that a consequence of deciding to have one, is the fetus going straight “to be with the Lord” , as JPII has proposed? I doubt I’ll get an honest answer.
Is that close enough to addressing comments?
Let’s put this to the test: If a womwn was planning an abortion, would JPII, or anyone else say:
"I would now like to say a special word to women who WILL HAVE* * an abortion.… You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is CERTAIN TO BE living in the Lord” (99).

Any normal person sees CONSEQUENCES which is the above insertions into JPII’s proposal.
Besides I was addressing **BEAR06 who is a thinker, **not a raving disoriented liberal who must attack the person because they can’t address the consequences of their proposals.
 
40.png
TNT:
It would, without a doubt, diminish the egregious level of the sin of abortion… After all, if you get an abortion, and are in doubt about a soul in a fetus, at least you are putting a soul (if it has one) , with certainty, into heaven.
Only a bodily lose remains. The Newchurch concentration on the possibility of universal salvation, makes this idea completely consistent.
Somehow, it seems like an incentive for, not against abortion by just about anyone who wants to justify their conscience.
This would be especially true for the rape and incest pregnancy as well as marginal “christians”
Way back when, the denial of many sects of the salvational efficacy of baptism, has led to countless youngsters dying not entering the Kindom of Heaven. But, The Newchurch is working on that I’m sure.
Finally, if “God’s Mercy” as you say overwhelms in this instance, it would only be logical to have that same “Mercy” prevail to all unbaptised who die before the age of reason. Billions of parents have no belief whatsoever in baptism.
I had a 4yr old grand nephew recently die by falling into a pit with a concrete floor…DOA. His parents are Mormon… They grieved greatly, but not because he was not in their heaven, as they believe he certainly was, from their belief.
Click to expand...
Your argument doesn’t hold water. Let’s look at murder in general. Has that stopped because people are faced with the fact that someone’s soul may not be in a disposition to die. The fact is, that souls not being denied the beatific vision would be a good thing and I will continue to pray that God’s mercy will extend here. I will also continue to pray that the Pope knows that a dispensation does exist for these poor souls lost to abortion, miscarriage, etc. There is no justification for murder. Look at the Holy Innocents. Because they were martyred and went to heaven, does this excuse those responsible for their deaths?
 
Since you provided me with a little dinner conversation my dear husband made a good point.

Should someone kill a baby before baptism or moments after, the sin is still a mortal sin with the exact same punishment for the unrepentent sinner.
 
40.png
bear06:
Since you provided me with a little dinner conversation my dear husband made a good point.
Should someone kill a baby before baptism or moments after, the sin is still a mortal sin with the exact same punishment for the unrepentent sinner.
Click to expand...
“Since you provided me with a little dinner conversation …” Glad we could help.🙂
As usual, I look at the victim, not just the predator.
After, preferably after “a little dinner conversation”.
BTW:
“exact same punishment”… I hope that wasn’t your idea!
What in the world was he ingesting?😉
 
Besides I was addressing **BEAR06 who is a thinker, **not a raving disoriented liberal who must attack the person because they can’t address the consequences of their proposals.
Click to expand...
Hey T, while I appreciate your kind words, I think it would be hard to prove that Theodred is a liberal. You might want to check out the posts of the person you are accusing of being a “raving disoriented liberal”. I only went through a few of his posts but he practices meatless Fridays and refuses to partake in Communion under both species. Hardly seems like a lib. Remember you used to think I was a raving, disoriented liberal and now you just think I’m raving and disoriented 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top