Can the Church change its teaching?

[surritter]

What did the last universal Catechism teach?

Finally, as the Apostle teaches, if by one man’s offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by Baptism.

Good find, Una! So unbaptized babies are indeed prevented from entering heaven. But why would the Vatican issue statements talking about hope and entrusting these babies to God, if the Catechism is clear that they have NO chance at entering heaven? Just wondering about the mixed message…
​

​

 

[rinnie]

What did the last universal Catechism teach? Finally, as the Apostle teaches, if by one man’s offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by Baptism.
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml
The difference between the Catechism from the Council of Trent and the modern CCC is one of degree of binding authority. The Church held that the Catechism from Trent was to be followed and taught in all the Churches and that it was the universal teaching of the Church to be held by all in order to quell the protestant errors at the time. This Catechism also stemmed from a dogmatic General Council that invoked infallibility through its dogmatic definitions and anathemas. The new CCC on the other hand stemmed from a non-dogmatic, “dialogue” council, whose stated purpose was not to change any teachings of the faith but to re-present them in ways that modern man could more easily accept and in his language. This council also emphasized God’s mercy and as a result, various new more “merciful” ideas have sprouted in order to appease people that find God’s justice to be a difficult concept to accept. The limbo commission stated that this was their purpose in reexamining the Church’s doctrine on limbo: to appease those who have lost infants and who have difficultly coping that they might not be in heaven one day. Instead of emphasizing God’s justice and the fact that he owes us nothing, they emphasize and focus almost exclusively on God’s mercy and try to explore new ways outside of the Church’s received tradition to explain her constant teachings. JP2 promulgated the new catechism as a reference book to write new catechisms and said that it is not to replace local catechisms approved by local ecclesiastical authorities. So it is an “authentic reference point” and “sure norm for teaching the faith,” and nothing more. It then cannot bind someone as a universal teaching but rather at a level of pious assent due to the credibility of the office from which it came. In short, the new CCC was not promulgated with the same degree of authoritative nature of universal nature as the one from Trent, and we as Catholics are obligated to follow Tradition, what has been handed on.

In practically every one of my posts on this issue I’ve made the point that the Church has never in her 2000 year history taught or approved of the teaching that unbaptized infants could get to heaven. The only ones who taught that were excommunicated as heretics. The natural conclusion that we come to when we say that there is some other way that unbaptized infants could be cleansed from original sin is that all unbaptized infants are cleansed from it. The result is a denial of original sin altogether as well as the necessity for baptism. Why has the Church for 2000 years emphasized the importance of not delaying unbaptized infants to the font and even saying that anyone can baptize even against the will of the parents in danger of death? Because she has always taught, as the passage from the Catechism from Trent demonstrates, that there is no other way that these infants can be saved.

Una, What is baptism of desire, and what does it mean?

 

[JReducation]

Good find, Una! So unbaptized babies are indeed prevented from entering heaven. But why would the Vatican issue statements talking about hope and entrusting these babies to God, if the Catechism is clear that they have NO chance at entering heaven? Just wondering about the mixed message…

It is not a mixed message. It is a clarification of what Trent tried to say. In fact,t he CCC is based on the Catechism of Trent. That was very clearly stated by Pope John Paul II in his decree authorizing the publication. Your CCC probably has a copy of that letter in the front. Many editions do. The CCC more than a pious piece of writing. It is an authoritative compendium of everything that we have always believed. It does not contradict Trent or any other council. It clarifies, reformats the lanaguage, answers questions that arose about declarations that Trent had made and addresses questions that were not around at the time of Trent: ie. nuclear holocaust.

To say that the focus on God’s mercy is abandoning Trent’s teaching about God’s jsutice, is unjust to the Church. What the Church says is that God’s mercy outdoes his justice. We know that to be true just by the cross.

Also, since God does operate outside of space and time, he does know the possibilities and human choices that can and would have taken place if circumstances had been different. That is why the Church has always taught about Baptism of Desire. This applies to the unborn who dies before birth. Only God knows whether this person would have desired what God has to offer and would have asked for baptism, had the person been given an opportunity. It is this mercy that John Paul calls us to believe.

We have to be very careful when we look at statements like that made by John Paul II and compare them to the Council of Trent or the Lateran Council or Vatican I, etc. The last thing that you ever want to do is to create a juxtaposition between a reigning pope and the Magisterium.

First of all, it’s very dangerous, because what you’re telling the world is that the papacy has limited authority to proclaim truth. Such a statement is not true. It does not have limited authority to proclaim truth.

Second, it’s very dangerous, because you’re telling your audience that you understand the teaching of the Church better than the pope. This takes us to the question of pride. Is the speaker being condescending? Even when the speaker does not intend to be condescending toward the pope, it can come across that way. We don’t want to do that or sound that way.

Third, it’s dangerous, because we sound as if we’re saying that the pope is being careless or disregarding what was taught before. We all know that this is not the case. Popes, even the most sinful ones in history, have always been very careful to teach truth, even when they violated their own teaching.

Fourth, a pope cannot teach against faith and morals, even in the ordinary magisterium or when making a simple comment. This is impossible. The truth is protected by the Holy Spirit.

When we hear something that sounds different from what we have heard in the past, we have a duty to find out, not what the past said, we know that, but a duty to find out how is this a continuation of what was said in the past. “We have to ask, what does it mean?”

I understand what Fides is quoting from Trent. The quote is accurate. But the meaning is being explained by John Paul II. We have a moral obligation to take the two together. This is what Trent said and this is what the Holy Father says it means or how it works. It’s not an either or proposition. It’s a both proposition. This is what was said and this is the correct interpretation or correct application, as it comes from the mouth of the pope or through those whom he delegates to speak for him.

Finally, the CCC was reviewed with a fine tooth comb by Cardinal Ratzinger and his office, not just once, but several times. Each time they found a problem in the organization, the wording, the translation, they took note and when they had found everything that needed to be fixed, a second edition was issued. It is not a pious piece of writing. It is a very thoughtful collection of theological statements that date back to the early Church, but are expressed on language that we understand today. We have to have the willingness to say, “OK, it’s not the way I understood it. But that’s not my fault either. I understood it differently, because of the language that was used at that time. However, that language does not have the same meaning today. Therefore, the Church has the obligation and the right to restate the same truth in today’s language and that’s what’s happening here. I’m not being cheated.”

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[surritter]

Boy Br. JR, we could have used you earlier!

I agree about baptism by desire, but earlier in the thread it was put forth by Una Fides that babies cannot do so because they can’t actively desire. See posts # 674-676.

I agree with you, JR, but I’m trying to get Una’s take on how we can be such strict adherents to the statements that actual baptism is REQUIRED (even by desire). I contend that having original sin be wiped away is necessary for entry into heaven, but we can’t say that actual baptism is the only way – God can intervene in ways that we know not. I think this is just a way of rephrasing your words, JR, that God can see what the individual would have decided.

If we can get Una to agree, then perhaps we could all posit that the hypothesis of limbo is not needed! After all, there are only four last things – limbo would make five.

 

[JReducation]

Boy Br. JR, we could have used you earlier!

I agree about baptism by desire, but earlier in the thread it was put forth by Una Fides that babies cannot do so because they can’t actively desire. See posts # 674-676.

I agree with you, JR, but I’m trying to get Una’s take on how we can be such strict adherents to the statements that actual baptism is REQUIRED (even by desire). I contend that having original sin be wiped away is necessary for entry into heaven, but we can’t say that actual baptism is the only way – God can intervene in ways that we know not. I think this is just a way of rephrasing your words, JR, that God can see what the individual would have decided.

If we can get Una to agree, then perhaps we could all posit that the hypothesis of limbo is not needed! After all, there are only four last things – limbo would make five.

Limbo has never been a dogma. Limbo has always been presented as a hypothesis. As the Church reviews what has been revealed to her and through her, she realizes that what our anscestors believed about Baptism makes it possible for a person who has not been baptized with water to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Our ancestors always believed in Baptism of Desire. They always taught that God exists and operates outside of time and space; otherwise, Christ’s sacrifice would not have any effect on those who lived before him. But God’s breadth and scope is infinite. Therefore, God knows what is possible and what man can and would do in different circumstances.

Based on these beliefs, that have been transmitted from generation to generation, the Church proposes that the unborn child who dies without baptism of water, just like the unbaptized Jew or Muslim, has the opportunity for Baptism of Desire, not through any human merit, but through the infinite mercy of God, which far surpasses his justice.

This concept of God’s justice vs. God’s mercy has been referenced and reinforced by many Doctors of the Church and through many private revelations that the Church has recognized as worthy of belief. To the best of my knowledge, the last time that this came up was during one of Jesus’ apparitions to St. Faustina, thus the devotion to Divine Mercy.

If the Church did not believe this, she would not have accepted Faustina’s testimony as true and she certainly would not have instituted Divine Mercy Sunday in her liturgical calendar, because the Church must teach as she prays and pray as she teaches. But if we read Pope John Paul’s sermon on the day that he canonized St. Faustina we see the following:

** HOMILY OF THE HOLY FATHER
MASS IN ST PETER’S SQUARE FOR THE CANONIZATION
OF SR MARY FAUSTINA KOWALSKA
Sunday, 30 April 2000

It is important then that we accept the whole message that comes to us from the word of God on this Second Sunday of Easter, which from now on throughout the Church will be called “Divine Mercy Sunday”. In the various readings, the liturgy seems to indicate the path of mercy which, while re-establishing the relationship of each person with God, also creates new relations of fraternal solidarity among human beings. Christ has taught us that "man not only receives and experiences the mercy of God, but is also called "to practice mercy’ towards others: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy’ (Mt 5: 7)” (Dives et misericordia, n. 14). He also showed us the many paths of mercy, which not only forgives sins but reaches out to all human needs. Jesus bent over every kind of human poverty, material and spiritual. **

The Holy Father states that there are many paths of mercy. This is not inconsistent with what we have been taught by Tradition, but a further explanation of what has been taught. If Faustina’s reports had been fraudulent or simply a misunderstanding, the Holy Father would have been unable to canonize her, becaues canonization is an infallible decree from the Chair of Peter. But the fact that he canonized her and confirmed that what she saw and heard was true, indicates that there is no conflict between a belief in mercy that surpasses justice and what has been taught in the past, but in fact what Faustina heard from Christ was part of the truth that the Church always believed, but may have been inadvertently misunderstood by us or simply forgotten. By us, I mean the person in the pew, not the pope.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

Fourth, a pope cannot teach against faith and morals, even in the ordinary magisterium or when making a simple comment. This is impossible. The truth is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Can you please show me where the Church teaches this? You do realize that there was a pope, Honorious I, who the Church later declared to be a heretic.

When we hear something that sounds different from what we have heard in the past, we have a duty to find out, not what the past said, we know that, but a duty to find out how is this a continuation of what was said in the past. “We have to ask, what does it mean?”

I understand what Fides is quoting from Trent. The quote is accurate. But the meaning is being explained by John Paul II. We have a moral obligation to take the two together. This is what Trent said and this is what the Holy Father says it means or how it works. It’s not an either or proposition. It’s a both proposition. This is what was said and this is the correct interpretation or correct application, as it comes from the mouth of the pope or through those whom he delegates to speak for him.

If you think they can be reconciled then please demonstrate the reconciliation.

 

[Hesychios]

Limbo has never been a dogma. Limbo has always been presented as a hypothesis.

I think that this can be said of a lot of things commonly believed in the church.

… Based on these beliefs, that have been transmitted from generation to generation, the Church proposes that the unborn child who dies without baptism of water, just like the unbaptized Jew or Muslim, has the opportunity for Baptism of Desire …

The key word in this argument is desire. I think that this (baptism of desire) is an unnecessary rationalization, probably first suggested to buttress Augustine’s general notion of human depravity. We would be very hard put to defend a concept of infants actually desiring baptism.

Yet this (desire) is the threshold to qualify that we will apply to adult Jews, pagans and Muslims.

God doesn’t need a theory like baptism of desire to do what is right, and I think that we are wrong to classify God’s love for infant children (regardless of their parentage or community) in this way. It is like putting God in a straitjacket of our own devising, and for our own reasons.

I think we need look no further than God’s perfect sense of justice, we need to remember that God desires that all come to him and acknowledge in all humility that ultimately He saves whom He will regardless of what theories we might propose.

 

[una_fides]

Boy Br. JR, we could have used you earlier!

I agree about baptism by desire, but earlier in the thread it was put forth by Una Fides that babies cannot do so because they can’t actively desire. See posts # 674-676.

I agree with you, JR, but I’m trying to get Una’s take on how we can be such strict adherents to the statements that actual baptism is REQUIRED (even by desire). I contend that having original sin be wiped away is necessary for entry into heaven, but we can’t say that actual baptism is the only way – God can intervene in ways that we know not. I think this is just a way of rephrasing your words, JR, that God can see what the individual would have decided.

If we can get Una to agree, then perhaps we could all posit that the hypothesis of limbo is not needed! After all, there are only four last things – limbo would make five.

Limbo is a place in hell. It literally means “edge.” It is its highest level on the outskirts where there is no pain of sense from the flames and where those who die in original sin only would be in a state of perfect natural bliss. I’m on another thread right now discussing the same thing, and it’s specifically on limbo in case you want to check it out.

 

[una_fides]

Una, What is baptism of desire, and what does it mean?

Baptism of desire occurrs when a person makes a conscious act of supernatural faith coupled with perfect charity and perfect contrition for any sins he has committed. This act of supernatural faith and perfect charity and contrition is also combined with his desire for baptism. In the case of catechumens this desire is explicit. In the case of someone who is invincibly ignorant, such an act would constitute an implicit desire for baptism, meaning that the person would have desired and readily accepted the sacrament if he knew that it existed. Sources available upon request.

 

[una_fides]

Good find, Una! So unbaptized babies are indeed prevented from entering heaven. But why would the Vatican issue statements talking about hope and entrusting these babies to God, if the Catechism is clear that they have NO chance at entering heaven? Just wondering about the mixed message…

Exactly. One teaching explicitly says they cannot enter heaven without baptism and the other says there could be some way apart from reception of the sacrament in which they could be cleansed. The two cannot both be true. The latter must be understood in some way as a baptism of desire, but the problem is that the Church has also previously stated that infants are incapable of such a desire and that the desire of the parents does not suffice in place of that of the infant.

 

[una_fides]

I think that this can be said of a lot of things commonly believed in the church. The key word in this argument is desire. I think that this (baptism of desire) is an unnecessary rationalization, probably first suggested to buttress Augustine’s general notion of human depravity. We would be very hard put to defend a concept of infants actually desiring baptism.

Yet this (desire) is the threshold to qualify that we will apply to adult Jews, pagans and Muslims.

God doesn’t need a theory like baptism of desire to do what is right, and I think that we are wrong to classify God’s love for infant children (regardless of their parentage or community) in this way. It is like putting God in a straitjacket of our own devising, and for our own reasons.

I think we need look no further than God’s perfect sense of justice, we need to remember that God desires that all come to him and acknowledge in all humility that ultimately He saves whom He will regardless of what theories we might propose.

Would you also add that “He saves whom He will regardless of how he has revealed he saves people”? Do you see that God cannot contradict his own revelation; otherwise, he is making himself a liar. “Unless you are born of water and of spirit you cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”

 

[una_fides]

Based on these beliefs, that have been transmitted from generation to generation, the Church proposes that the unborn child who dies without baptism of water, just like the unbaptized Jew or Muslim, has the opportunity for Baptism of Desire, not through any human merit, but through the infinite mercy of God, which far surpasses his justice.

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X

Q. 827. Whither go infants that die without baptism?
A. To a part of hell, where they endure the pain of loss, but not of sense, and shall never
see the face of God.

Q. 828. How prove you that?
A. Out of John iii. 5. “Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

           Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin

Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?

A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.

Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?

A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?

A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

Council of Lyons II, 1274 (Denzinger 464)

“Those who claim, that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this— Condemned.”

             St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, “If you want to be a Catholic do not believe do not say do not teach that infants carried off by death before being baptized can obtain the remission of original sin.”

Excellent sermon: audiosancto.org/sermon/20070422-Contra-Sedevacantism-and-the-Recent-Document-on-Limbo.html The section on limbo starts at 6:40 into it.

 

[una_fides]

This concept of God’s justice vs. God’s mercy has been referenced and reinforced by many Doctors of the Church and through many private revelations that the Church has recognized as worthy of belief. To the best of my knowledge, the last time that this came up was during one of Jesus’ apparitions to St. Faustina, thus the devotion to Divine Mercy.

If the Church did not believe this, she would not have accepted Faustina’s testimony as true and she certainly would not have instituted Divine Mercy Sunday in her liturgical calendar, because the Church must teach as she prays and pray as she teaches.

           Saint Faustina: “One day, I saw two roads. One road was broad, covered with sand and flowers, full of joy, music and all sorts of pleasures. People walked along it, dancing and enjoying themselves. They reached the end without realizing it. And at the end of the road there was a horrible precipice; that is, the abyss of hell. The souls fell blindly into it; as they walked so they fell. And their number was so great that it was impossible to count them. And I saw the other road, or rather, a path, for it was narrow and strewn with thorns and rocks; and the [few] people who walked along it had tears in their eyes, and all kinds of suffering befell them. Some fell down upon the rocks, but stood up immediately and went on. At the end of the road there was a magnificent garden filled with all sorts of happiness, and all these souls entered there. At the very first instant they forgot all their sufferings.” (*Diary* 153)

She most certainly understood God’s mercy in the correct light, which is not to the exclusion of his justice. The fact that anyone can be saved demonstrates God’s mercy. The fact that all of us are not right now burning in hell, as we rightly deserve for our sins, demonstrates the infinite mercy of God.

 

[Hesychios]

I contend that having original sin be wiped away is necessary for entry into heaven,

I contend that we need to get over this concept.

Original Sin (First Sin) to us is our wounded nature, actually the effects of the sin, not the sin itself. We need to overcome these effects and defeat them in all occasions of our life experience, there is no wiping it away.

Original sin is Adam’s sin, it would specifically bar him from heaven. He would need to be forgiven to realize his entry into heaven.

… but we can’t say that actual baptism is the only way – God can intervene in ways that we know not.

I might agree with this statement if it weren’t manacled to the idea that First Sin itself (even without our own sins) bars people in general from heaven besides Adam (and probably Eve).

All of this came out of later speculation over the reason we baptize. That is like putting the cart before the horse.

The reason we baptize is because we were told to, by Jesus. Saint Paul probably gave the best explanation of the original thinking, most especially since he was in contact with the other Apostles and learned directly.

How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection.

We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin.

For a dead person has been absolved from sin.

If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him.

As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God.

Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:2-11

To saint Paul baptism (dying with Christ and rising with Him) makes one a part of the Body of Christ, a member of the church. That’s it.

We don’t need these later theories.

 

[Hesychios]

Would you also add that “He saves whom He will regardless of how he has revealed he saves people”? Do you see that God cannot contradict his own revelation; otherwise, he is making himself a liar. “Unless you are born of water and of spirit you cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”

I addressed this someplace else.

 

[JReducation]

Can you please show me where the Church teaches this? You do realize that there was a pope, Honorious I, who the Church later declared to be a heretic.

He was not a heretic because of what he taught, but because of what he believed. The jury is still oiut on this. But that’s another thread.

The question I pose to you, since you’re the one who is challenging John Paul’s statement, do you believe that John Paul was a heretic or that he did not know what the Church had taught before?

Either he was speaking out of ignorance or deliberately misleading, from the way that you’re challenging his statement.

I don’t see you making any effort to understand him or to reconcile what he said with what was said before. I see almost a stubborness on your part. You appear almost determiend to prove this man wrong. I find that rather scary coming from a Catholic speaking about a pope who was both very knowledgeable about theology and philosophy and who was also a very holy man. In fact, one whom the Church has formally declared lived a life of heroic Christian virtue and elevated to the status of Venerable.

But if he was deliberately deviating from previously taught truths, then he is not venerable. On the other hand, he could be excused, if you truly believe that he did not understand what was tuaght in the past; but that would be highly questionable and the burden of proof would fall on the person who makes that allegation, not on him.

The other position is to make a humble effort to reconcile what he said with what was said before. I believe this is what happened when the study of his life for canonization was completed. Part of the study includes examining his teachings, beliefs and writings to ensure that he never taught or held anything that is contrary to revelation. The conclusion was that he did not, but that he was always faithful to revelation.

But now you’re saying that his statement is in conflict with revelation, while an entire army of theologians, cardinals and the pope himself have agreed that he was faithful to revelation and that nothing was found in his work and life that would suggest the opposite. Therefore, the study of his life is now officially closed and he is a venerable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X

Q. 827. Whither go infants that die without baptism?
A. To a part of hell, where they endure the pain of loss, but not of sense, and shall never
see the face of God.

Q. 828. How prove you that?
A. Out of John iii. 5. “Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” .

It does seem like the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this point.

 

[rinnie]

Baptism of desire occurrs when a person makes a conscious act of supernatural faith coupled with perfect charity and perfect contrition for any sins he has committed. This act of supernatural faith and perfect charity and contrition is also combined with his desire for baptism. In the case of catechumens this desire is explicit. In the case of someone who is invincibly ignorant, such an act would constitute an implicit desire for baptism, meaning that the person would have desired and readily accepted the sacrament if he knew that it existed. Sources available upon request.

Then tell me this. About 4 years ago I lost a baby. I did not have a body to baptise because that baby was not even totally formed yet. According to the teaching’s of the Church that baby had a soul from the moment of conception. Now are you telling me that my baby has no way of getting into heaven by Baptsim of desire? I had every single baby of mine baptised at one week old. I know that my desire to have that Child baptised was enough for God.

Now another question for you, If what you say is true and in order to be baptised are you saying that child has to desire and readily accept the HS? Then why do we as Catholic’s not only baptise our babys, are told to do it immediately. You are saying what the Protestatnts say now, that you cannot be baptised until you accept Jesus Christ.

What you are saying goes totally against what is taught to us. I do not understand the difference between us as catholics baptising our child at birth being Baptism of desire, or God understanding that we could not accomplish this, and knowing that if that child would have existed it would have been given to him by me at birth?

Because I was taught that we can do it for our infants? Could you explain that to me then, How can a infant make this conscious decision at one week old? Then you go on and say that Baptsim of desire is if the person was ignorant at the time, but in time would accept Jesus. Now again are you saying that a child died in birth cannot be baptised by CHrist from

A, My desire,
B. Its desire if it would have lived.

Because you are not making sense here. I was told as soon as I had a child to give that soul to God. I was taught as a parent and God parent it was my duty to bring that child up in the Sacraments and Church until confirmation where at confirmation that child has a duty to obey the commandments of God on his own now. So something is very very wrong with what you are teaching, and what I have been taught all of my life in the Church.

 

[rinnie]

Hi JR, Think about what I am saying, I was so upset and sick over losing my baby. It was one minute I am having a baby the next minute my baby is gone. I asked Father about this, and he told me that God knew what we are capable of doing, and what we cannot do.

He told me that I could go to God and ask God to accept this Child just how I did it for my other 2 that were here on this earth. And he told me I desire to have that Child given the gift of the Holy Spirit would be accepted by Baptism of desire. And by my prayers God would accept this child.

Because think about it, Baptism is the Priest acting in the place of God and giving that Child the gift of the Holy Spirit in this world, The way una is putting it God can give that child the Grace of the Holy Spirit here in this world but cannot do it in the next? It makes no sense to me.

 

[una_fides]

I addressed this someplace else.

Read your post. It seems you have an aversion to any “extreme position” as if the fact that it is on one end of a spectrum or another makes it inherently wrong. God is on one end of the spectrum by his very nature. He is pure and complete holiness. Not holiness and evil. The same can be said of his other attributes.

You basically pointed to the thief on the cross and said that since he wasn’t baptized by water then therefore baptism is not necessary. First, the thief on the cross died according to the OT standard since Christ had not yet completed his work. Second, the thief had no ability to be baptized. Third, the thief desired baptism at least implicitly. Fourth, he must have had perfect charity for God at the time and consequently received a baptism of desire. This is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching from the Council of Trent, which says that either the reception of baptism by water or at least the desire thereof is necessary for salvation. It seems to me that you must deny the infallibility of the Church and this General Council, but that is another story for another thread.