R
rinnie
Guest
Sorry bud, you are right, but where I am confused what is the argument with Sir Knight.
Is he not saying the same thing?
- Status
Is he not saying the same thing?
R
rinnie
Guest
Where is he wrong?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
He’s not but the fact that he used one paragraph out of what 80-something in the CCC on Baptism gives one a bias view IMHO.
Its no different than understanding no-salvation in its proper context.
Its no different than understanding no-salvation in its proper context.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
Does not our Holy Mother Church teach this:
However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers and sisters.-**-cited on the Knights of Columbus **website.
R
rinnie
Guest
But my question here is this, I can see Non-Catholics who do not understand the OHCAC not getting this, but why is he being attacked by his own brothers and sisters.
I mean we as Catholic’s all see the OHCAC and agree that we are all in communion with one another and have one teaching.
He sees as we have always been taugh, t that when we speak of the Church, the Church as being the same as Christ because without the Cross there would be no Catholic Church, which is the means of being saved of our sins by a Living CHrist here on this earth working by means of the CC.
This is where I am confused, not of Non-Catholics not understanding our Union with one another and them being a part of the CC. but Catholic’s arguing the point.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Rinnie, I think Sir Knight was making a point, due to his colored highlight, to discredit the posts regarding invincible ignorance - that those who live the natural law written in their hearts may obtain salvation. He is obstinately denying this teaching by using the CCC’s words to imply that baptism ALONE grants salvation.
R
rinnie
Guest
Bear with me here, but is his point Not that rather you SEE it or NOT it is by the blood of Jesus Christ.
What I am trying to say here is this, A Jew cannot SEE that Christ is the reason for our Salvation. Okay now Rather a Jew can see it or not, does not mean it is not the truth. And even though a Jew cannot SEE it, but does not reject God and the Holy Spirit CAN gain eternal life in heaven by GOD, but its still by the blood of his Son on the Cross that saved the Jew. Do you see what I am saying here?
S
Sirach2
Guest
No, that was not his point. I’ll bet on it, since he has so often said that without baptism to remove original sin, even unbaptized babies go to hell. PRmerger refuted that with the Holy Innocents, and once again, Sir Knight objected.
I have posted twice now that the redemption of Christ (simply different wording, same meaning) is the manner of applying salvation to anyone who cannot SEE, Jews included. Do you not see that I am in agreement?
R
rinnie
Guest
Also let me put this another way. How can Sir Knight or you or I say that we CAN enter into heaven without Baptism when the word of Jesus Christ teaches us the opposite.
Because even the Pope himself cannot say we can ENTER into heaven WITHOUT Baptism. Its the word of God.
But we can BELIEVE that by EXTRA-ORDINARY MEANS Baptism is possible.
To give you an example, I lost a baby. That baby existed, had a soul. But there was no human baby to Baptise, But I believe that God accepted that Baby into heaven by extra-ordinary means, which in my eyes baptism of desire, either on my part or the babys.
What I am saying is we rely on the MERCY of God and his Love to let us enter heaven. But it is still by the blood of his Son which is truly what Baptism is. The forgiveness of Original Sin, do you see what I am saying?
Ordinary means is through the Church. God can work through the Church on earth or he can work though the Church at the moment of our death, which is still by the means of Jesus Christ. The Church on earth is our Jesus working by the power of the Holy Spirit.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.
" Baptism is necessary for salvation " I believe was the highlighted point made.
Its no different than stating “There’s No Salvation outside the CC” yet ignoring the entire context of LG.
Are both this correct statements “No Salvation outside the CC” and “Baptism is necessary for Salvation”…yes they are. However its ignoring the context. In other words its reading “Sola Scriptura”.
I don’t for a moment doubt the intentions are good of Sir Knight, on the contrary I believe he’s a very good Catholic. Nevertheless we also have an obligation to present the Doctrine correctly.
Peace
" Baptism is necessary for salvation " I believe was the highlighted point made.
Its no different than stating “There’s No Salvation outside the CC” yet ignoring the entire context of LG.
Are both this correct statements “No Salvation outside the CC” and “Baptism is necessary for Salvation”…yes they are. However its ignoring the context. In other words its reading “Sola Scriptura”.
I don’t for a moment doubt the intentions are good of Sir Knight, on the contrary I believe he’s a very good Catholic. Nevertheless we also have an obligation to present the Doctrine correctly.
Peace
R
rinnie
Guest
Hold on here now, Where is it said that Un-baptised babys go to heaven. We believe that through the Mercy or Christ that they can obtain salvation through extra ordinary means do we not?
Where has the CHurch ever taought we can enter into heaven again I ask you without baptism. While the Church will never condemn unbaptised babys to hell, they rely on the mercy of God to us extra ordinary means. But I believe, and I could be wrong, but with my understanding Baptism still would exist, for them to enter heaven.
I just see it as Christ himself doing it is all. Because nothing is impossible for God. But can we say, that we can enter into heaven without Baptism. Thats the question?
R
rinnie
Guest
Gary correct me if I am wrong, but is this not considered by the Church Baptism of desire which is another word for Baptism of extra- ordinary means?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Baptism of Desire
1259 -For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit “desire” to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1259 -For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit “desire” to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
S
Sirach2
Guest
And obviously, babies do not need to repent of their sins. 
We know from revelation that God infuses a soul at the moment of conception. Babies who are miscarried, or even the millions who are aborted in our societies, were given a soul/spirit destined to live in eternal beatitude with God, their Creator. That spirit does not die along with the body, but it is eternally created and will live forever.
We also believe in the resurrection of the dead who will be in either heaven or hell. The form of that body is unknown to us. Surely, it will not be resurrected as an immature fetus, nor as a 100-year-old body with dementia or deformity. No, the spirit is totally different from the body. To that baby’s “spirit,” God could use extraordinary means of baptism of desire at the moment of their death giving them an opportunity to accept or reject Him, and therefore “justify” them for salvation. Revelation and Church teaching has not revealed this to us. Formerly, “Limbo” was a theological assumption without true revelation from God.
We therefore entrust these innocent ones to the Mercy of God, who alone knows their status in the after-life. That’s not to say baptism isn’t truly necessary in the ordinary manner and should not be neglected.
We know from revelation that God infuses a soul at the moment of conception. Babies who are miscarried, or even the millions who are aborted in our societies, were given a soul/spirit destined to live in eternal beatitude with God, their Creator. That spirit does not die along with the body, but it is eternally created and will live forever.
We also believe in the resurrection of the dead who will be in either heaven or hell. The form of that body is unknown to us. Surely, it will not be resurrected as an immature fetus, nor as a 100-year-old body with dementia or deformity. No, the spirit is totally different from the body. To that baby’s “spirit,” God could use extraordinary means of baptism of desire at the moment of their death giving them an opportunity to accept or reject Him, and therefore “justify” them for salvation. Revelation and Church teaching has not revealed this to us. Formerly, “Limbo” was a theological assumption without true revelation from God.
We therefore entrust these innocent ones to the Mercy of God, who alone knows their status in the after-life. That’s not to say baptism isn’t truly necessary in the ordinary manner and should not be neglected.
R
rinnie
Guest
Okay now here we go. Would a baby desire to be with God? Yes. I believe as God said if you are one of his he knows and he would know the desires of even an infant.
R
rinnie
Guest
Hold on there. Does a baby repent thier sins at Baptism? Is baptism not the washing away of Original sin?And obviously, babies do not need to repent of their sins.
We know from revelation that God infuses a soul at the moment of conception. Babies who are miscarried, or even the millions who are aborted in our societies, were given a soul/spirit destined to live in eternal beatitude with God, their Creator. That spirit does not die along with the body, but it is eternally created and will live forever.
We also believe in the resurrection of the dead who will be in either heaven or hell. The form of that body is unknown to us. Surely, it will not be resurrected as an immature fetus, nor as a 100-year-old body with dementia or deformity. No, the spirit is totally different from the body. To that baby’s “spirit,” God could use extraordinary means of baptism of desire at the moment of their death giving them an opportunity to accept or reject Him, and therefore “justify” them for salvation. Revelation and Church teaching has not revealed this to us. Formerly, “Limbo” was a theological assumption without true revelation from God.
We therefore entrust these innocent ones to the Mercy of God, who alone knows their status in the after-life. That’s not to say baptism isn’t truly necessary in the ordinary manner and should not be neglected.
If a baby is not born into original sin then the protestants are right then correct? That we can not be baptised until we are held to actual sin then?
R
rinnie
Guest
Again please let me be clear on this. From what I believe is the true word of God everyone must be cleansed from the stain of Original Sin in order to enter heaven.And obviously, babies do not need to repent of their sins.
We know from revelation that God infuses a soul at the moment of conception. Babies who are miscarried, or even the millions who are aborted in our societies, were given a soul/spirit destined to live in eternal beatitude with God, their Creator. That spirit does not die along with the body, but it is eternally created and will live forever.
We also believe in the resurrection of the dead who will be in either heaven or hell. The form of that body is unknown to us. Surely, it will not be resurrected as an immature fetus, nor as a 100-year-old body with dementia or deformity. No, the spirit is totally different from the body. To that baby’s “spirit,” God could use extraordinary means of baptism of desire at the moment of their death giving them an opportunity to accept or reject Him, and therefore “justify” them for salvation. Revelation and Church teaching has not revealed this to us. Formerly, “Limbo” was a theological assumption without true revelation from God.
We therefore entrust these innocent ones to the Mercy of God, who alone knows their status in the after-life. That’s not to say baptism isn’t truly necessary in the ordinary manner and should not be neglected.
Everyone is born into the sin or Original Sin except Christ and of course his Mother who was SAVED and CLEANSED from Original sin, not at the moment of her birth but at the moment of her CONCEPTION, so that the stain of O.S. never hit her.
But I was never taught that babys that were unborn were indeed guaranteed to be saved from Original Sin at the moment of thier conception. but I can believe that because of the Grace given to my dear Blessed Mother, God can give that grace to an unborn baby at any time also.
IT IS the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, that I can believe in the Grace of God to do so. But because it is possible, does not also mean it a guarantee.
H
HISservant11
Guest
Truly, being catholic or whatever earthly group one claims to belong to means nothing at all…
**Romans 9:15-16
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. **
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well a baby wouldn’t fall into Baptism of Desire here we are talking innocents. Which in truth is believed children are till the age of consciousness. So had they not been born into original sin they wouldn’t be aware of the ability to sin.
1261- As for children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
But I don’t know rinnie its a good question. Have you ever heard the Mormons/LDS take on this concept?
Theres a good Bull on this also but I can’t remember which Pope wrote it. Let me google it a bit and see what I come up with.
Interesting though.
R
rinnie
Guest
Okay I need this teaching. I need the teaching of the CC that states that God infuses a soul at the moment of conception. Because the only Church teaching I have is the Immaculate Conception that is a true teaching of the RCC.And obviously, babies do not need to repent of their sins.
We know from revelation that God infuses a soul at the moment of conception. Babies who are miscarried, or even the millions who are aborted in our societies, were given a soul/spirit destined to live in eternal beatitude with God, their Creator. That spirit does not die along with the body, but it is eternally created and will live forever.
We also believe in the resurrection of the dead who will be in either heaven or hell. The form of that body is unknown to us. Surely, it will not be resurrected as an immature fetus, nor as a 100-year-old body with dementia or deformity. No, the spirit is totally different from the body. To that baby’s “spirit,” God could use extraordinary means of baptism of desire at the moment of their death giving them an opportunity to accept or reject Him, and therefore “justify” them for salvation. Revelation and Church teaching has not revealed this to us. Formerly, “Limbo” was a theological assumption without true revelation from God.
We therefore entrust these innocent ones to the Mercy of God, who alone knows their status in the after-life. That’s not to say baptism isn’t truly necessary in the ordinary manner and should not be neglected.
I am not saying it is not possible there is one, I am saying I sure missed it. Please supply it to me. Thanks
- Status