Can the Church change its teaching?

[JReducation]

Those are good points Poco. The only thing that Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI have added is the reminder of God’s mercy toward those who are unable to desire or ask for baptism through no fault of their own. It’s a reminder, because the Church has always taught that God’s mercy is infinite. She has always taught that God tempers his justice with his mercy. We find this in the scriptures as well. This past Sunday, I believe, we heard about the fig tree that did not bear fruit for three years and how the master wanted to cut it down. But he did not, at the request of the caregiver. We all know the story of Job, “And if you find at least one just man, will you still destroy the city?” We know the story of Cain. God puts a seal on Cain so that no one may kill him. Like these, there are many Revelations of God’s justice being pacified by his mercy.

It is very tempting to stress God’s justice or his mercy to the point that we present an unrasonable god to the world. The Church has always beleived in a God who does not deny his life and presence to those who, through no fault of their own, have not come into the Church, whether these people are born or not.

As Pope Benedict said, we tried to use the concept of Limbo and it worked for many centuries, but it is very troublesome today. Since it was never declared a doctrine, we must ask ourselves if the Church, in her wisdom, left it open, precisely because the concept had some weaknesses. Today we’re seeing those weaknesses and they are disturbing, as Pope Benedict said in one of his statements. But he also refers us back to the encyclical, Evangelium Vitae and offers what John Paul II wrote as the possible answer to the missing piece in the Limbo paradigm. Mabe, we have not thought enough about God’s mercy and about what the Church has traditionally taught on mercy.

What both popes do is send us back to tradition, but to the teaching on Limbo, because that’s nto a doctrine. The popes send us back to traditional dogmatic theology on mercy.

I’ll close as I have been doing almost every post. These two men have proven to be very credible theologians because of their orthodoxy and personal holiness. There is nothing in any of their teachings that anyone can say is contrary to faith and morals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rinnie]

Una you are missing my point. Again let me say it another way.

Do you believe that the Blessed Mother was saved from sin before she was ever born? If you do not then we can not argue the point because first of all this is Church teaching and it is the teaching I can use to prove that it is possible.

Now if you agree with me how was she saved from original sin, Baptism! Correct. Is that not the Grace that was given to her.

THere there is not only my point proven there is also Church teaching to back it up.

I never said ANYONE could go to heaven without Baptsim. Again you are not seeing what I am saying. I am saying God can baptise a baby just like he did the Blessed Mother. Are you saying it was not possible that God came to my baby at the second of his or her conception and baptised it.

ANd are you saying that when I lost that Baby and begged God to have mercy on that babys soul and save it he didn’t?

So how can you say that God cannot save a child in the mothers womb. Because thats what you are indeed saying are you not?

So we have questions that we need to address.

1. Do you agree with the teaching of the Church that the Blessed Mother was never touched with sin, and was saved from the second of her conception? If you disagree with that we have no argument? We will have to agree to disagree.
2. Are you saying that God did not know that I desired that baby to become baptised and by my prayers and my familys prayers he rejected us?

3, Where I went to the Blessed Mother that day at the time of my childs death and begged her to be that Childs mother and take care of it for me and raise it for me, and love it and keep it for me until we meet again she said no?

1. We as RC believe that the Child is a person at the second of its conception and has a soul so it does exist. Do you agree with that?
2. If you do then how can you say that God did not know that the child desired him and would be a follower of him, He knew Judas would betray him before Judas was ever born.
3. So if God know all we will do before we ever do it, I can he not know that the Child desired him, and accepted him, and not accept that Child at the moment either of his Death or even his conception.

What I am saying to you, you want concrete evidence that my child could be in heaven. I gave it to you. The Blessed Mother is not only my proof, it is also Catholic teaching. She was saved by Christ and Catholic teaching does not teach that God can only make an exception for her. IF it is catholic teaching, I am wrong and stand to be corrected.

 

[rinnie]

Another teacing from the word of God that I think is proof that infants can enter heaven by Gods love.

Luke 18:15 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus however CALLED THE CHILDREN TO HIMSELF (lets pause there. can he not call them in the womb) lets continue. Let the Children come to me, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen I say to you whoever does not accept the kingdom of God LIKE A CHILD will not ENTER IT!

So I like the Church know God, Know his mercy and know his teachings. Jesus Christ baptises Children who through no fault of their own can do not do it. If he does not then you are contradicting scripture. (DO NOT PREVENT THEM). Jesus would not prevent them. and to say that he does not go to them either at the moment of their conception or anytime in the Mothers womb would indeed say they were prevented to do so.

Does that not show you also that God knows the mind of an infant or child. Its is their love and trust of God that we are to imitate.

But back to my point again let me stress. Do all have to be Baptised to enter heaven. YES. Can Jesus baptise you to enter heaven if he chooses YES.

Because what you are saying is again a Priest can baptise you through the sacrament of Baptism, but Jesus cannot exercise this himself. It’s absurd. But again to say that we should not give that child to God and take it to Church immediately is even more absurd. But God cannot hold me, or my child accountable for something we had no control over. That’s my point.

You keep saying that child is in limbo. How do you know. Prove to me that God did not save my child like he did the Blessed Mother.

 

[una_fides]

On the contrary, I understand it perfectly well. I thought I made my position clear.

I just reject the concept outright as a fallacy.

If it is not an immersion in water with the proper formula, it’s just not a baptism. People using the term “baptism of desire” are just kidding themselves. What happens to them might be analogous to a baptism in your way of thinking, but it’s really not.

Go on and believe what you want on the subject.

Wait a second, so you don’t believe that if water is poured over the person than it’s a valid baptism??? Have you read this or this?
“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).
Also you say that the primary purpose of baptism is to identify with Christ or be made a part of the Church? What does the Creed say???
“We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
What is baptism “for” according to the Creed?

In the case of infants, for what sins are they being baptized to be forgiven? They are baptized in order to be filled with the divine life of God, which their human natures inherited by Adam, infected by original sin, were entirely void and lacking. We are by nature children of wrath, but in baptism we are justified, purified, and sanctified (1 Cor 6:11), regenerated (Tit 3:5), born again (John 3:5-7), saved (1 Pet 3:20-21), and are made partakers of the heavenly gift (Heb 6:4), a gift which as infants we did not have before we received it.

 

[sidbrown]

If it is not an immersion in water with the proper formula, it’s just not a baptism.

Does this mean then, that you do not accept pouring water on the head, or sprinkling? I read where a priest tried baptism by immersion, but the baby drowned and died. So it seems like this triple immersion can be dangerous and it is more prudent to go to pouring.

 

[JReducation]

Does this mean then, that you do not accept pouring water on the head, or sprinkling? I read where a priest tried baptism by immersion, but the baby drowned and died. So it seems like this triple immersion can be dangerous and it is more prudent to go to pouring.

There are very few Christian traditions that require Baptism by immersion, simply because it’s not always possible. I don’t know of any tragedies such as drowning. My guess would be that the priest held the child under the water while pronouncing the words. You’re only supposed to dunk and lift three times, not dunk and hold down. I remember when we were in the seminary we were taught how to do it. There is a proper technique to it. I’ve only baptized on child in my life, but it was not by immersion. It was with a pitcher over the head.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

There are very few Christian traditions that require Baptism by immersion, simply because it’s not always possible. I don’t know of any tragedies such as drowning. My guess would be that the priest held the child under the water while pronouncing the words. You’re only supposed to dunk and lift three times, not dunk and hold down. I remember when we were in the seminary we were taught how to do it. There is a proper technique to it. I’ve only baptized one [sic] child in my life, but it was not by immersion. It was with a pitcher over the head.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

According to the Orthodox poster on here, you never actually baptized anyone.

 

[una_fides]

I don’t believe that anyone can help you. I find it sad, but I really don’t believe that you can be helped here.

I find your condescending tone quite sad myself. Also why do you assume that I’m the one that needs the help here? Perhaps you should be the one seeking answers. So far you are 0-2 in reconciling current teachings with prior ones.

Because unless you accept the credibility and knowledge of these two men and the fact that they did not err, nor intended to do harm to the teachings of the Church, you will not assent to what they have said.

So let me get this straight, JP2 cannot err when he teaches according to his ordinary * non-binding authority, yet a General Council makes dogmatic statements of fact, not speculative but definitive, and those are the ones that can be reinterpreted later? I think you are the one here who needs assistance in understanding the hierarchy of teaching authority. Just because you respect JP2 does not make him infallible when he teaches ordinarily nor does it mean that just because something was taught recently that it thereby somehow trumps everything *that had been taught before including definitive teachings from General Councils.

What is unfortunate is that neither of them has made public the background for their statements. They rely on the trust of the faithful. But if you don’t trust that they are doing the right thing and saying the right thing and if you don’t believe that they know more theology, philosophy, scripture and Church history than we do, then no one can help you, not even them.

It doesn’t take a theology, philosophy, Scripture, and Church history scholar to be able to see some of the apparent contradictions here. What were the faithful to do during the Arian crisis in the early Church when in some areas all the bishops were manifest heretics? In fact, at one point, it is estimated that most bishops at one point were Arians! Should they have just trusted their bishops to lead them into heresy? We are not dealing with something on the level of the divinity of Christ, but we are still dealing with serious issues in which we need to be faithful to our received tradition and more authoritative and more sure decisions made through General Councils.

 

[una_fides]

John Paul and Beendict have not defined their positions as dogma.

Then its just as open for discussion and they are just as prone to error if not greater than the hundreds of popes before them that taught differently on these two issues.

Again, I can’t help you. Because these are the systems and the people on which most of us depend to interpret and clarify what has been taught in the past.

Why do you need them to reinterpret the past for you? Why not just read all the many documents for yourself? The Church clarified these matters already. Also these modern documents are not trying to explain what the Church used to teach as much as they are trying to teach different new doctrines that have never before been taught in the history of the Church. If you can prove to me that the Church in her inherited tradition ever taught that it’s possible that no men end up going to hell or that non-baptized infants can be saved, then I’ll listen, but so far you have provided no evidence whatsoever despite my many requests for you to do so. The only argument you keep making is that you trust that these modern popes cannot be wrong on anything, yet by saying so on matters in which they conflict with all the popes before them, you are at the same time saying that all the popes before them that taught contrary, and often to a greater dogmatic and binding extent, were in error! Your favoring what’s modern and new over what has been handed down through tradition could not be more evident.

But I must give you a warning. Do not set your understanding of tradition as correct. Remember, we can all read what is in print. But that does not mean that we always understand what we are reading or the nuances. This is going to sound ridiculous, but it helps. The Church often writes in in a manner that is very difficult to read, because she uses words and phrases differently than do the people in the pews…That’s why we have something called the Sacred Congregation for the Fatih, to translate all of this stuff into language that modern Catholics, especially modern theologians can work with it.

Very many modern theologians today are unfortunately infected with modernism. There are very few who are actually faithful to the received Tradition and do not speculate and try to reinterpret everything that has been handed on and stretch it and rip it apart to try to make it mean things entirely different or write it off as “old church nonsense.”

The Church actually writes in Latin so that the documents can be understood and understood one way to avoid confusion. Part of the problem we have today are liberal translators, as was evidenced in the old wording that people in Novus Ordo masses have been subjected to for so many years. At least now the wording will be fixed to be more legitimate. The actual words of Christ, “for you and for many” will be again said along with “and with your spirit,” “through my fault (x3) my most grievous fault,” etc.

 

[una_fides]

I have to add here, it was not uncommon for the Church to write for theologians rather than for the man in the pew. Given the limitations in communication of the past, most documents produced at councils were never going to be seen by the laity. They were going to be read by theologians and monks. Sometimes, they were allowed to be used in seminaries, but that was not common until after Vatican II when the formation programs began to insist on using unaltered copies of the originals. My point, these arguments on limbo, Original Sin and redemption were written for theologians. What John Paul and Benedict have tried to do is to simplify it for the lay person, the non-theologian, which includes most of the laity, most priests and more religious. Yes even priests and religious are included in this. Most priests and religious only study four years of theology. They are generalists in theology. They are not required to be theologians. They too depend on theologians to answer their questions and to translate or interpret Church documents.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well then why not rely on the greatest theologian in the history of the Church who has by far gained more magisterial approval than any other?
From the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII. A couple quick gems:

Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers…
We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences… Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

(you’ve probably seen me post this part before )

 

[una_fides]

What both popes do is send us back to tradition, but to the teaching on Limbo, because that’s nto a doctrine. The popes send us back to traditional dogmatic theology on mercy.

What about the dogma that those who die in original sin only descend immediately into hell? That dogma is infallibly defined. What you are proposing is that the Church dogmatically defined a pointless dogma because you would say that no one actually dies in original sin only. If that is the case, then there would have been no point to make such an infallible definition.

 

[una_fides]

Una you are missing my point. Again let me say it another way.

Do you believe that the Blessed Mother was saved from sin before she was ever born? If you do not then we can not argue the point because first of all this is Church teaching and it is the teaching I can use to prove that it is possible.

Now if you agree with me how was she saved from original sin, Baptism! Correct. Is that not the Grace that was given to her.

No. The blessed Mother did not receive baptism! She was preserved from original sin altogether. She never in any way received nor came in contact with original sin or a defective human nature from which she would have needed to receive a baptism to be cleansed from. I think you have an idea in your mind that she both received Adam’s sin and was cleansed from it at the moment of her conception. If so that is not what the Church defined. Please erase this concept from your mind, and go back and read the original document again in which the pope dogmatically declared that from the first moment of her existence she never at any time ever inherited original sin.

I never said ANYONE could go to heaven without Baptsim. Again you are not seeing what I am saying. I am saying God can baptise a baby just like he did the Blessed Mother. Are you saying it was not possible that God came to my baby at the second of his or her conception and baptised it.

Can someone else on here please help me out and back me up here. Rinni, please listen, God did not baptize the Blessed Mother. She received a singular grace, which means that only she received this special grace from God of being immaculately conceived. In her apparitions, she said, “I am the Immaculate Conception.” She is the only one who received this grace. What you are proposing is that all men are conceived without original sin like Mary. I am saying the following with charity and concern, please understand that this idea is heretical and is not Catholic. I know you are not thinking this intentionally, but please re-examine the original documents. Heresy is nothing to mess around with and must be averted and detested at all costs.

ANd are you saying that when I lost that Baby and begged God to have mercy on that babys soul and save it he didn’t?

So how can you say that God cannot save a child in the mothers womb. Because thats what you are indeed saying are you not?

God does have mercy on children in the womb and out of the womb. They do not suffer for sins. Again they are in a perfect state of eternal bliss. They are better off than you will ever be on earth, in a state of constant perfect natural happiness. Again, God does not owe us salvation. None of us deserve baptism.

 

[una_fides]

So we have questions that we need to address.

1. Do you agree with the teaching of the Church that the Blessed Mother was never touched with sin, and was saved from the second of her conception? If you disagree with that we have no argument? We will have to agree to disagree.

She *never *had any contact whatsoever with original sin. She was not made with sin and at the same time immediate cleansed through a sort of baptism. She was entirely preserved.

1. Are you saying that God did not know that I desired that baby to become baptised and by my prayers and my familys prayers he rejected us?

No. I’m not saying God rejected you. Realize that God knows what is happening, and he is in control. What happens is for the best. Here is a hypothetical for you, a terrible one, but one that very well could have happened. What if your child had grown up and rejected his faith entirely, rejected God, committed so many very grievous sins, and then died in that state? Of course you would have been praying for him his whole life and desired he be saved and your family as well, but ultimately he would have chosen his path and died in his sins. Would God have “rejected” you and your prayers? No. God is love and mercy, but he is also justice. Scripture teaches that we are “by nature children of wrath” and that spiritual death has passed upon all men as a result of Adam’s sin. God wants to cleanse us, but he needs our cooperation. In the case of infants who die without baptism, I would assume that it was in their best interest and that they are better off in their state of eternal bliss in limbo rather than suffering the fires and torments of hell for all eternity.

3, Where I went to the Blessed Mother that day at the time of my childs death and begged her to be that Childs mother and take care of it for me and raise it for me, and love it and keep it for me until we meet again she said no?

I don’t know if you realize what you are asking for here. I realize you have a lot of emotion involved here, but please try to look past the emotion objectively and see what the Church has always taught here is in line with God’s mercy and justice. Our minds, clouded by sins, often are unable to see and understand God’s ways, which are so far above our own. I would imagine that the Blessed Mother would have said, “My child, God is in control. Do not worry. Your child will not suffer and it is better for him to be where he is now than what may have occurred otherwise.”

1. We as RC believe that the Child is a person at the second of its conception and has a soul so it does exist. Do you agree with that?

Of course

1. If you do then how can you say that God did not know that the child desired him and would be a follower of him, He knew Judas would betray him before Judas was ever born.

Now you are starting to think. Like I said earlier, it would make sense that God would know the fate of the child had he lived and it could have very well been an eternity of suffering in hell, so the child did not have to endure that but was preserved by going to limbo.

1. So if God know all we will do before we ever do it, I can he not know that the Child desired him, and accepted him, and not accept that Child at the moment either of his Death or even his conception.

There are so many possibilities in life that only God knows how they would all unfold. He is the perfect architect and nothing happens without his permission, whether it be good or evil, God permits it to happen. We must realize that God permits evil to take place in order to accomplish the greater good: our salvation and sanctification. God knows who will betray him and who will accept him, and if someone dies at an early age or before ever entering this world, I trust that God knew best, and that they are in a better place than had they lived and rejected him.

What I am saying to you, you want concrete evidence that my child could be in heaven. I gave it to you. The Blessed Mother is not only my proof, it is also Catholic teaching. She was saved by Christ and Catholic teaching does not teach that God can only make an exception for her. IF it is catholic teaching, I am wrong and stand to be corrected.

It is Catholic teaching that only the Blessed Mother received this special grace of being preserved from original sin. To say that everyone else receives this grace is to deny original sin altogether.

 

[JReducation]

What about the dogma that those who die in original sin only descend immediately into hell? That dogma is infallibly defined. What you are proposing is that the Church dogmatically defined a pointless dogma because you would say that no one actually dies in original sin only. If that is the case, then there would have been no point to make such an infallible definition.

The only thing that I’m going to repeat is what Pope Benedict also said. The Church never defined the that children who die without baptism never get to heaven or see the beatific vision. The Church left this open for further discussion and continues to leave it open. Which Pope Benedict has said that he finds the former position very troublesome.

What you have here is a point that has been held for a very long time, but never defined as dogma. It was stated at the Council of Trent. But according to both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Council of Trent did not intend to define this as a dogma. Therefore, it is open for these popes and future popes to express their concerns about this bellief, which is what they are doing. I doubt very much that either John Paul or Benedict would not know what Trent intended to define as dogma and what it did not intend to define. These are not dumb men.

As to the nuance, the fact that the documents are written in Latin does not mean that there is an absence of nuance. I read Latin quite fluently and I still find nuance in different writings. We read most of our theology in Latin (because we came from many different language groups) and much of it had nuances that had to be explained. That’s all these two men are saying. They are saying that nuance of this position is disturbing and is open for discussion. You want to say that it is not open for discussion. All I’m defending here is the pope’s right to open a discussion on a point that has never been defined as dogma. And this dicussion has to factor in the nuance of the language that was used. By language I don’t mean Latin. I mean the nunace of the wording.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[una_fides]

But God cannot hold me, or my child accountable for something we had no control over. That’s my point.

You inherit original sin. You had no control over it. Much like a child who is born into a bankrupt family had no control over the fact that his father squandered away his inheritance and left him in debt, so did our father Adam do for us. In the spiritual war, Adam chose not only for himself but also for his descendants. He chose sides, the side of the devil, and as a result, we all must suffer from the effects of his original sin when we inherit his human nature.

Here is what the Church fathers wrote on original sin:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201frs.asp

You keep saying that child is in limbo. How do you know. Prove to me that God did not save my child like he did the Blessed Mother.

I hope I’ve proven it from my post above, but if you would like me to dig up the official Church declarations on this matter, I will for you, or perhaps someone else on here will do it for me. For now, here is something to read on limbo:
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

 

[una_fides]

The only thing that I’m going to repeat is what Pope Benedict also said. The Church never defined the that children who die without baptism never get to heaven or see the beatific vision. The Church left this open for further discussion and continues to leave it open. Which Pope Benedict has said that he finds the former position very troublesome.

What you have here is a point that has been held for a very long time, but never defined as dogma. It was stated at the Council of Trent. But according to both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Council of Trent did not intend to define this as a dogma. Therefore, it is open for these popes and future popes to express their concerns about this bellief, which is what they are doing. I doubt very much that either John Paul or Benedict would not know what Trent intended to define as dogma and what it did not intend to define. These are not dumb men.

As to the nuance, the fact that the documents are written in Latin does not mean that there is an absence of nuance. I read Latin quite fluently and I still find nuance in different writings. We read most of our theology in Latin (because we came from many different language groups) and much of it had nuances that had to be explained. That’s all these two men are saying. They are saying that nuance of this position is disturbing and is open for discussion. You want to say that it is not open for discussion. All I’m defending here is the pope’s right to open a discussion on a point that has never been defined as dogma. And this dicussion has to factor in the nuance of the language that was used. By language I don’t mean Latin. I mean the nunace of the wording.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You attribute all these statements to pope benedict without citing any of them. Can you please show me where he makes such statements in their contexts so they can at least be examined and communicated as he intended them.

What you are saying is that these two popes find the Church’s constant teaching for 2000 years “disturbing” and you don’t find that disturbing? Perhaps they have difficulty understanding God’s justice because they are focusing intensely on his mercy. For example, if a person stares too intensely on one side of a coin, he can forget that the other side even exists.

 

[JReducation]

You attribute all these statements to pope benedict without citing any of them. Can you please show me where he makes such statements in their contexts so they can at least be examined and communicated as he intended them.

What you are saying is that these two popes find the Church’s constant teaching for 2000 years “disturbing” and you don’t find that disturbing? Perhaps they have difficulty understanding God’s justice because they are focusing intensely on his mercy. For example, if a person stares too intensely on one side of a coin, he can forget that the other side even exists.

My friend, we discussed Ratzinger’s and John Paul’s statement in context on post 742, remember?

You said this, as part of your answer.

**Oh I pray for a pope that doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel but just sticks with what the Church has always taught. These new popes are really making me nervous with the types of things they say. **

That’s why I have been saying that if you cannot trust these two popes, then there is not much that I can say to you. Personally, until someone shows me that either of them has done or said something contrary to faith and morals, I find them to be quite orthodox and I’m not alone in this observation about them. Therefore, if either of them says that they are uncomfortable with the traditional teaching and feel that this is still open for further discussion, I trust that there must truly be something discomforting. Do I know what the final conclusion will be? No. Maybe it won’t be Pope Benedict who defines the answer. Maybe it will be someone in the distant future. But for the moment, Pope Benedict is uncomfortable with the traditional idea. This is not a man who is given to modernism or fads or political correctness, etc. His very intelligent, orthodox and has been protecting our faith for a very long time. So what is there not to trust?

Let’s allow the Church to repopen this dicussion. What’s there to lose?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

According to the Orthodox poster on here, you never actually baptized anyone.

I hope you are not reffering to me, because that is not my position.

The preferred method is immersion (which is what the word means) but the church has always allowed pouring.

However, to Orthodox it would be allowed only as an extreme measure, the Didache is very clear about this. The Latin Catholic church has always been more liberal in economy (dispensation) over this practice.

I specifically made the case that there is no baptism of desire for infants, and I also made the case that it does not necessarily mean these young innocent ones are damned, or even that they are denied only the Beatific Vision (which, by the way, Orthodox do not believe happens anyway so it is no actual loss - that’s grist for another mill and another thread).

 

[surritter]

The only thing that I’m going to repeat is what Pope Benedict also said. The Church never defined that children who die without baptism never get to heaven or see the beatific vision. The Church left this open for further discussion and continues to leave it open. Which Pope Benedict has said that he finds the former position very troublesome.

Very well said, JR. Una, please reread this paragraph. Yes, the Church has defined that those who die with the stain of original sin are prevented from entering heaven. But the Church has NOT infallibly defined that every infant who dies without baptism is GUARANTEED to still have that stain when he or she appears before the throne of God.

Those two statements are not the same thing – so there is some room in between those two statements where God MAY intervene. That’s the part we just don’t know. But you seem so set on limbo that you automatically weld those two statements together. That could be true, but the Church has not cemented that weld; it has only confirmed the first statement.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

She *never *had any contact whatsoever with original sin. [SIGN] She was not made with sin and at the same time immediate cleansed through a sort of baptism. She was entirely preserved. [/SIGN]

No. I’m not saying God rejected you. Realize that God knows what is happening, and he is in control. What happens is for the best. Here is a hypothetical for you, a terrible one, but one that very well could have happened. What if your child had grown up and rejected his faith entirely, rejected God, committed so many very grievous sins, and then died in that state? Of course you would have been praying for him his whole life and desired he be saved and your family as well, but ultimately he would have chosen his path and died in his sins. Would God have “rejected” you and your prayers? No. God is love and mercy, but he is also justice. Scripture teaches that we are “by nature children of wrath” and that spiritual death has passed upon all men as a result of Adam’s sin. God wants to cleanse us, but he needs our cooperation. In the case of infants who die without baptism, I would assume that it was in their best interest and that they are better off in their state of eternal bliss in limbo rather than suffering the fires and torments of hell for all eternity.

I don’t know if you realize what you are asking for here. I realize you have a lot of emotion involved here, but please try to look past the emotion objectively and see what the Church has always taught here is in line with God’s mercy and justice. Our minds, clouded by sins, often are unable to see and understand God’s ways, which are so far above our own. I would imagine that the Blessed Mother would have said, “My child, God is in control. Do not worry. Your child will not suffer and it is better for him to be where he is now than what may have occurred otherwise.”

Of course

Now you are starting to think. Like I said earlier, it would make sense that God would know the fate of the child had he lived and it could have very well been an eternity of suffering in hell, so the child did not have to endure that but was preserved by going to limbo.

There are so many possibilities in life that only God knows how they would all unfold. He is the perfect architect and nothing happens without his permission, whether it be good or evil, God permits it to happen. We must realize that God permits evil to take place in order to accomplish the greater good: our salvation and sanctification. God knows who will betray him and who will accept him, and if someone dies at an early age or before ever entering this world, I trust that God knew best, and that they are in a better place than had they lived and rejected him.

It is Catholic teaching that only the Blessed Mother received this special grace of being preserved from original sin. To say that everyone else receives this grace is to deny original sin altogether.

What are you saying here una, first you say she was not Baptised, then you say a sort of Baptism? ANd she was not cleansed from sin. I made the mistake and used that word myself she was SAVED from sin by the Grace of God. Are you saying we can be saved by sin without Baptism now? SHe was saved by God by Baptism, at the second of her conception. Jesus was also baptised was he not???