U
una_fides
Guest
This “extraorindary means” contradicts Scripture and 2000 years of Tradition. God does not act contrary than how he reveals to us that he acts. If he does, then that would make him a liar.
- Status
U
una_fides
Guest
All revelation ceased after the death the death of the last apostle. To say that God reveals new truths to the Catholic Church that are outside of the sacred deposit already entrusted to the apostles is heretical. Please understand this distinction and clarification.
First, the Church has taught that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. That is a positive teaching. Second, God can do what he wants and what he wants to do is always consistent with what he has revealed about himself and how he acts according to divine revelation. So when Scripture says that if one is not baptized he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, then there can be no extraordinary means outside of baptism.
Popes have taught that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. Thus, this teaching would not be able to change then, correct?
Does Scripture state that unless one is baptized he cannot enter heaven? Yes!!
U
una_fides
Guest
Right, there is a big difference between saying that they do go to heaven instead of that we hope they might possibly somehow get to heaven in some extraordinary way unknown to us. I think the “hope” in this case would not be in any way similar, however, to theological hope, which is faith directed to the future. It would have to be a fleeting hope. An unlikely shot, but hey a remote possibility. Nevertheless, again I think the Church has been clear for 2000 years in teaching that without baptism, whether by water, blood, or desire, that no one can enter heaven. The Church has also been clear that in the case of infants a baptism of desire on the part of the parents does not suffice as a baptism. The obvious reason being that a baptism of desire is a personal act of supernatural faith with perfect charity, which the particular soul must freely make in order to be baptized by desire. When in doubt, stick with Tradition. Please show me where in the 2000 year history of the Church it has every been taught by anyone that unbaptized infants could possibly enter heaven? Again as was pointed out earlier, the Council of Carthage, the same Church council that originally canonized Scriptures, declared that such teaching was heresy.
S
surritter
Guest
I do see what you’re saying, but to hold to the absolute position of physical baptism as being necessary keeps not only those infants out of heaven, but every individual on the face of the Earth who did not have the possibility of hearing about Jesus for the many centuries where Christianity was unknown in the New World!
So you must admit that your interpretation means that no Native American person who lived between the years 33 and 1492 can possibly be in heaven.
J
JReducation
Guest
WHOAH!!! I’m not sure if anyone else caught this. This is not true. Mary was conceived WITHOUT original sin. She was NEVER contaminated by original sin. God called her into existence completely sinless. In other words, whe was already sinless, while she was still a thought in the mind of God. This is the doctrine of the Immculate Conception.
She could not have been “cleansed” of original sin immediately at her conception, because she did not exist before her conception. All animals come into existence at the moment of conception. There is not single moment before. Therefore, Mary comes into existence free of any sin. She never had any contact with the original sin of her parents.
Aquinas believed that Mary had original sin and was cleansed in the womb, but the Franciscans proved him wrong. Bl. John Duns Scotus proved that Mary never had any contact with Original sin, not for a fraction of an instant. This has been the faith of the Church since Apostolic times.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
But the Church does teach that there are several forms of baptism, not only by water. Therefore, even those who die before they are born, can be baptized or children who are not baptized and die before they are old enough to ask for baptism can also be baptized through desire. The same principle applies to people of other faiths who are never baptized.
There is an excellent lecture on this topic by Fr. John Corapi. It comes from his series on the CCC. He explains how many more people than we know are baptized, without ever joining the physical Catholic Church, either because they die before birth or never become Christians. He explains how this is consistent with revelation contained in scripture, the magisterium and Sacred Tradition. You may want to get a hold of it or you may be able to get the transcript directly from his organization. He’s on the web. You may want to check into it, because it’s a very good explanation and user friendly, as I call it. He bypasses all the theological language and explains it so that anyone can understand it, regardless of one’s level of religious education.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
H
Hesychios
Guest
I am sorry to have to say this to you here, but I am quite certain that this has never been the belief of the church.
Please provide your sources to show that the Holy Spirit reveals teachings to the Pope.
S
surritter
Guest
Yes, Brother, that’s a good point. And I think it was already brought up. Rinnie was using the term stain to mean the effects of original sin, and had no intention of casting doubt on the actual teaching of the Immaculate Conception.WHOAH!!! I’m not sure if anyone else caught this. This is not true. Mary was conceived WITHOUT original sin. She was NEVER contaminated by original sin. God called her into existence completely sinless. In other words, whe was already sinless, while she was still a thought in the mind of God. This is the doctrine of the Immculate Conception.
She could not have been “cleansed” of original sin immediately at her conception, because she did not exist before her conception. All animals come into existence at the moment of conception. There is not single moment before. Therefore, Mary comes into existence free of any sin. She never had any contact with the original sin of her parents.
Aquinas believed that Mary had original sin and was cleansed in the womb, but the Franciscans proved him wrong. Bl. John Duns Scotus proved that Mary never had any contact with Original sin, not for a fraction of an instant. This has been the faith of the Church since Apostolic times.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
But there is still a lingering question – despite not having been touched by original sin, did Mary suffer from any of its effects? (Even when baptism removes original sin, the effects remain, such as concupiscence and bodily death.) I’m thinking that we don’t really know – even the teaching on the Assumption leaves her death up in the air.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I was not going to comment on this before, since it does not directly follow the topic of this thread, and for another reason.
But I want to point out that your argument here is locked into cataphatic reasoning, while the early church (at least in the east, where most of the Fathers and Councils were located) predominantly used apophatic reasoning.
Why is this important? Because the whole concept baptism necessary for salvation was not always seen as a zero-sum argument (and the effects of baptism were not everywhere seen the way it has been argued here). Augustine is an exception (and very prominent in western thought) yet he was not universally considered the last word on this subject, or the only word. In fact, there were other ideas of his that were not accepted by the church so this should not be an alarming thing to point out.
Naturally, Traditional Latin Catholicism follows Augustine and so the lines of thinking in this thread will follow Augustine. Thus I agree that the Latin Catholic church definitely does not allow for the salvation of unbaptized infants. But I think that it can be shown that the Latin Catholic church, following Augustine, has always been on shaky ground, and perhaps actually wrong about this concept of the damnation of infants. So basically my other reason for not wishing to comment originally was that essentially, that it seems to require me to compare eastern thought to the Latin and that is frowned upon in this forum.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I hate to point out that he did not prove anything. His arguments were ultimately adopted, that is different.
This is a matter of Faith, and is not provable.
Depending upon what original sin really is (it’s effects, etc. etc.) it may only be the belief of the church since the time of John Duns Scotus.
Pax et Bonum,
J
JReducation
Guest
I think the best way to understand this is to look at Jesus’ temptations in the desert and his agony in the garden. He does experience temptation, fear, anxiety and physical death.
The Eastern Fathers referred to Mary’s last day on Earth as the Dormition of Mary. This is the term that is still used in the Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church is very comfortable with this. We have never taken a stand one way or another, whether her heart and brain actually stopped functioning or whether she fell into a death-like sleep is not as important as the Assumption itself. The Assumption tells us something about Christ and ultimately, it is Christ whom we look to.
All of the mysteries and wonders around Mary were actually meant to reveal something about Christ. The Assumption tells us what awaits us at the end of time. Christ will raise us up and reunite the soul and body for all eternity. Thus the Assumption is really a proclamation of Christ’s kingship over life and death., not only his own, but that of all creation. He begins his unitive ministry with his mother who had not reason to suffer the corruption of the grave, because she had never experienced the curruption of sin. Mary is spared the physical effects of Original sin, as were John the Baptist and Jesus.
She never comes into contact with the physical effects of sin, because she is conceived free of sin and lives sinless.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church has always believed that Mary was not an heir to the sin of Adam.
As far as Scotus is concerned, whether we say it was adopted or that he proved, is irrelevant. The point is that his formulation, which came from the early Franciscan formulation, settled the question about Mary’s Immaculate Conceptioin once and for all. Up to that point the question on the table was whether she was conceived without original sin or born without original sin. Scotus’ response settles the question once and for all. Mary was conceived without sin. We say that he “proves” because what he does is present an irrefutable argument that the early Fathers were correct in their understanding and in their teaching.
This had been an important debate between the Franciscans and the Dominicans of the time. The Dominicans subscribed the Aquinas’ position that Mary was born without Original sin and that the Fathers had been misunderstood. The Franciscans subscribed to Francis’ of Assisi’s point of view that the Church is incapable of misunderstanding revelation, despite human sinfulness. Therefore, the understanding and teaching of the Fathers was exactly as the Church believed it. Mary was conceived without sin. It’s important not to misunderstand the history here. Francis preceeded Aquinas. They never met. This was not a debate between the two men, but between the two schools: Franciscan and Thomist/Scholastic.
Scotus sums it up very nicely: God could do it. It was appropriate that he do it. So he did it. Obviously I’m giving the conclusion here. His writing is much longer than this. You can find that in any book on Scotus or in New Advent.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
peary
Guest
The Church has never changed Her teachings on any truth of Faith or morals. It has remained consistent throughout history.
Limbo was a theological construct but was never a mandated truth of the Faith, as is purgatory, heaven and hell. Some catechisms, like the Baltimore, taught it as a truth.
S
sidbrown
Guest
It looks to me like the teaching on the morality of slavery, torture, extermination of heretics, whether a jew can be saved, have all changed.
U
una_fides
Guest
I did not propose the position that actual physical baptism is necessary for salvation. As I stated, the Church teaches that there are three ways a person can be baptized: by water, by blood, or by desire. In the case of infants, they cannot be baptized by desire because they are incapable of having such desire. Thus, they could only be saved by water or by blood. From what I’ve read concerning baptism by blood, the person must willfully undergo the martyrdom in the name of Christ with a desire to enter the Church to be saved through a baptism by blood. And again since infants are incapable of such a desire, then that too would exclude them. Hence we are left that they can only be saved by a baptism of water. Those who have reached the age of reason, however, would then have the possibility of baptism by blood or desire.
In the document from the Limbo commission, they conclude as popes have concluded before that infants are incapable of a baptism by desire. Their conclusion is that God uses some extra-sacramental means to save them, meaning that he is thereby acting outside the sacrament of baptism rather than through the desire for the sacrament. The Council of Trent infallibly declared the following:
Chap. 4. A Description of the Justification of the Sinner, and Its
Mode in the State of Grace is Recommended796 In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of the sons” [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5]. (Denz 796).
This is the infallible definition that must continue to be understood in eodem sensu (in the same sense) as the Church has always understood it to mean (as Vatican I infallibly defined is the only way dogmas can be understood). Again, no where in the 2000 year history of the Church has the Church ever taught that unbaptized infants can go to heaven. If so, please please try to disprove me. What you will find with your research is that the Church actually anathematized the Pelagians along with this teaching. Granted, the Pelagians came to this conclusion through denying original sin; nevertheless, the conclusion is the same, and the Church has always taught that one can only be justified through water baptism or at least the desire thereof. The Church has also taught infants are incapable of this desire. Therefore, logic demands, that infants cannot be justified without water baptism.
U
una_fides
Guest
See my last post please. Can you show me where any Church father or where the Catholic Church has ever previously taught that infants who die without baptism can be justified? Unless you consider the Pelagians to be orthodox then you may want to reconsider your comment that the Church can defend such a teaching from Tradition.But the Church does teach that there are several forms of baptism, not only by water. Therefore, even those who die before they are born, can be baptized or children who are not baptized and die before they are old enough to ask for baptism can also be baptized through desire. The same principle applies to people of other faiths who are never baptized.
There is an excellent lecture on this topic by Fr. John Corapi. It comes from his series on the CCC. He explains how many more people than we know are baptized, without ever joining the physical Catholic Church, either because they die before birth or never become Christians. He explains how this is consistent with revelation contained in scripture, the magisterium and Sacred Tradition. You may want to get a hold of it or you may be able to get the transcript directly from his organization. He’s on the web. You may want to check into it, because it’s a very good explanation and user friendly, as I call it. He bypasses all the theological language and explains it so that anyone can understand it, regardless of one’s level of religious education.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
surritter
Guest
Then the million dollar question is: Doesn’t the conclusion drawn from these statements amount to an infallible declaration that unbaptized infants are most definitely excluded from heaven? Your interpretations of those well-researched statements leave no wiggle room for otherwise.
Also, what about the plight of those Native Americans that I posed in post #659?
U
una_fides
Guest
Hello. Thanks for your comments. I think this is a relevant discussion since the topic is whether the Church can change her teaching, and we are discussing teachings that it seems like the Church has (non-infallibly) “changed.”
Interestingly, Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in the General Council of Ephasus. This teaching is similar to what many of the Eastern Churches teach today in that they emphasize the goodness of human nature and deny that man inherits the sinful nature of Adam and that all sin in Adam. Again, I would not want to cast my lot with Pelagius or anything close, as his teachings were condemned as heresy for a reason. The Church in a General Council sided with Augustine against Pelagius regardless of whether the eastern Churches later decided to accept Augustine’s teachings or not. Anyway, this whole topic is worth looking into by reading the primary sources themselves rather than secondary.
U
una_fides
Guest
I already answered the comment on the Native Americans, but I just didn’t explicitly state so. Hopefully this will help. Those to whom the gospel had never been explicitly preached–including Native Americans prior to when the gospel had been brought to them–have the possibility of salvation through an implicit desire for baptism, meaning that had they known of baptism, they would have accepted it, and this desire would have to be animated by perfect charity and contrition for any sins they committed. The problem is the extreme unlikelihood that any of them would ever make perfect acts of charity and contrition especially since they had not been taught to do so and since they do not have access to the sacraments. It’s difficult enough to be saved as a Catholic who has access to the sacraments, so imagine how difficult for those who not only did not have access to such grace but also believed many things that acted contrary to grace as well. Many tribes practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice. We know that such behavior is motivated through demons and demonic possession. These people were so lost in their sins and overwhelmed that they for all practical reasons did not stand a chance against satan and his prompts. That is why it is so important for us to evangelize and bring Christ’s saving gospel to people.
Regarding infants, surely God knows that those infants who are raised by heathens would grow up to be heathens themselves like their parents. The truth of the matter is that most people go to hell. Many are called but only few are chosen. God knows souls and he knows what they would have chosen had they grown up. Surely those infants that would have grown up in such an atmosphere of rampant sin would have been much more guilty of sins had they been given chance to live, so for the ones that did die, they actually would have received a much much better state than those who did live and grew to be great sinners living lives of rebellion against God and his natural law, which is written on the hearts of every man so that he is without excuse (See Rom 1).
S
surritter
Guest
Sorry that I missed the implicit answer to my Native American question. But I still think you are erecting several fences that, when connected, cause problems in other areas. For instance, you say that the Native Americans of long ago had the possibility of salvation because of an implicit desire of baptism. This was despite the insurmountable gap in that they did not have the instruments at hand to even know of the Gospel.
But suddenly, when it comes to modern-day infants, you say that this same “implicit desire of baptism” is not possible for them, even though they too have an insurmountable gap in that they do not have the instruments at hand to know of the Gospel.
I think that illustrates the inconsistency.
But to take it further, let’s cross the two situations together, and examine the case of a Native American baby of long ago who had the misfortune to fall into both camps that I’ve presented above. Now, according to your beliefs, at what age would that child go from having NO hope of salvation (because he was an unbaptized infant) to a person who had SOME hope of salvation (because he would be in your group of Native Americans who had at least a theoretical chance). Would you say the age of reason?
Sorry to get into such specifics, but can you see how this slamming of the door on unbaptized infants might paint us into a corner when that logic is pursued to its absolute ends?
- Status