They don’t write as if they “Just think so” or something. This really is quite ridiculous and I feel as if rogergosselin is the only one being honest with himself about what the Church has actually taught.Some teachings of the Magisterium are infallible, other teachings are non-infallible.
The existence of a fringe or limbo of Hell is implied by infallible teachings on the different punishments given to those who die in a state of original sin alone, but there is no infallible teaching that infants go there, nor that it is a place of [alleged] natural happiness.
So your evidence is that one Pope said something boldly and another Pope doesn’t think so?Post #312.
You said we need to look at the language and then you went no further… What do you mean? How do you read it? Evidence please.You read what?
The Council of Florence is a dogmatic council, just as is Trent. I’ve never heard the claim that Florence was not infallible. Can you elaborate?From Ron Conte (bold mine) : The limbo of Hell was taught by Pope Pius VI and by the Council of Florence, but not infallibly.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1573652&postcount=3
There have been many ex cathedra statements throughout the history of the Church. That is why Vatican I carefully definied the criteria for making the determination of infallibility. Thanks to Isaiah45_7 for post #307 in this regard.Yes.
And there have only been 2 ex cathedra declarations: Mary’s IC and her Assumption.
It does not address it. But the Church has defined that anyone who is baptized, either through water, desire or blood, and has no mortal sin, will go to heaven.
In Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (p. 356-357), Baptism of Desire is classified as Sent. Fidei Proxima (A necessary conclusion deduced from a dogma). In support of this it cites from Holy Writ:PRmerger, could you please cite where the Church has defined (by definition I mean Magisterial teaching) anything about Baptism of Desire or Blood? I have asked around, and no one has seemed to be able to produce anything.
As a matter of fact, the Papal teachings I’ve found (EG post #301) indicate that Blood and Desire Baptisms are traditions of men, not to be held by the Faithful.
.According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: U Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: U He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 2.3, 43: “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”
Baptism of Blood is also classified as Sent. Fidei Proxima:The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Bapti~m, St. Ambrose says: "Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Cer* tainly: As he desired it, he has attained it … His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: “I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery of Baptism” (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. II 6, 7) and the Summa Sententi~m (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. C£ S. tho III 68, 2.
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sjn. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted. nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
The problem with infallible declarations is that we only have a definition but not an infallible vehicle (The Church and/or the Pope) declaring what is and is not an infallible declaration. What we have instead are “opinions” in manner of “if the boot fits”.Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an unbaptised person, that is, the patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature leads to death, by reason of one’s confession of the Christian faith, or one’s practice of Christian virtue.
Jesus Himselfattests thejustifying power ofmartyrdom. Mt. 10, 32 : … Every one therefore that shall confess me before meo, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10, 39 (16, 25): “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall fmd it.” John 12. 2S: “He that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal.”
From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for Baptism. Tertullian calls it " blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and ascribes to it the effect of “taking the place of the baptismal bath if it was not received, and restoring that which was lost” (De bapt. 16). According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive cc the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). C£ Augustine, De civ. Dei xm 7.
As, according to the testimony ofTradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism, blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace ofjustification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remis* sion of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St. Augustine says: U It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend oarselves to his prayers" (Sermo 159, I). Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character. C£ S. tho III 66, I I and 12.
See post #301.Perhaps if you could re-state these absolute statements it would be helpful.?
Forgive me, but are you being intentionally obtuse? If after Our Savior made it binding, absolutely no one can enter Heaven without Sacramental Baptism, how can there be a multitude of unbaptized souls in Heaven? Simply because they entered with Our Lord, during His Resurrection before the rule of Baptism was made binding, under a different dispensation, referred to as the Old Law!So when it is allegedly proclaimed that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE can enter heaven without baptism…and there could be MILLIONS of exceptions…this is an absolute statement, how?
Unfortunately, I find this to be true with the Catholic Church, more so in the past half century, or so. There seems to be much diabolical confusion.Catholicism is neat though, in that it can teach one thing (with very bold language) then turn around and say maybe, maybe not. It reminds me of Protestantism!
Excuse me, but doesn’t the Church believe that adults, not only infants and children, who are not even Christian, let alone Catholic, can attain heaven if they believe in their own religion and practice what they believe? Maybe it is not easier for them since Catholics, in particular, have the Sacraments, but doesn’t the Church still teach that salvation, while always through Jesus and His Church, is achievable?See post #301.
Forgive me, but are you being intentionally obtuse? If after Our Savior made it binding, absolutely no one can enter Heaven without Sacramental Baptism, how can there be a multitude of unbaptized souls in Heaven? Simply because they entered with Our Lord, during His Resurrection before the rule of Baptism was made binding, under a different dispensation, referred to as the Old Law!
The absolute necessity applies only to the time period after the Resurrection when Jesus founded His Church, and as sole means by which we become members of the Church. The Council of Trent is clear on this matter.
Read again the Papal proclamations. They do not use the past tense when making their “absolute statements”. They are consistent.
Elements of the faith do not have to be specifically proclaimed ex cathedra to require the assent of the faithful.This thread is interesting. It’s interesting to note how many different views coexist within the Catholic tent. We’ve seen Catholics say that one pope’s words qualify as ex cathedra, while another Catholic says they don’t, that a given council was authoritative and essentially infallible, and another that it wasn’t — yet all these views are Catholic. Out of curiosity, is it possible for a Catholic to hold that councils and popes can err? How is a Catholic supposed to know the difference between and infallible statement and an errant one, if later popes and councils seemingly contradict?
- The teaching office
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
When the Church speaks, we give the Church our “good faith” (bona fides), not our doubts and demands for infallible proof. The understanding of the faith flowers over time. Fuller understandings do not equal proof of previous errors.892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Many modernists do promulgate this idea, but I do not believe it is what the Church teaches:Excuse me, but doesn’t the Church believe that adults, not only infants and children, who are not even Christian, let alone Catholic, can attain heaven if they believe in their own religion and practice what they believe? Maybe it is not easier for them since Catholics, in particular, have the Sacraments, but doesn’t the Church still teach that salvation, while always through Jesus and His Church, is achievable?
As I understand it, the best interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” is that whoever is saved receives salvation, whether they know it or not, through the Church by means of the mystery of G-d’s mercy. The proclamation does NOT mean that people must be Catholic to be saved.Many modernists do promulgate this idea, but I do not believe it is what the Church teaches:
Pope Leo XII,* Ubi Primum (# 14)*, May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
I don’t know, at the moment, if Ubi Primum is dogmatic, but there are many other Papal proclamations that state this same thing. Also, the Athanasius Creed, which we are bound to not only believe, but also to profess to the world, states "one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
I hope this doesn’t appear uncharitable. I am just trying to be honest about our Faith. I certainly want all men and women of good will, particularly my friends on this forum, to be saved. If that means the necessity of the Catholic faith, then I certainly would not want to cover up this crucial information.
Maybe we should start a new thread on this related topic.
My understanding:Out of curiosity, is it possible for a Catholic to hold that councils and popes can err? How is a Catholic supposed to know the difference between and infallible statement and an errant one, if later popes and councils seemingly contradict?
What has the Church taught in those quotes except that Original sin alone is enough to keep us out of heaven?? The Church still teaches that you know. I don’t think anyone here is denying that.They don’t write as if they “Just think so” or something. This really is quite ridiculous and I feel as if rogergosselin is the only one being honest with himself about what the Church has actually taught.
The necessity of baptism and the existence of Original sin are still just as firmly taught as ever. There’s no ‘‘turning around’’ here.Catholicism is neat though, in that it can teach one thing (with very bold language) then turn around and say maybe, maybe not. It reminds me of Protestantism!
The Catechism of the Catholic Church? I think that’s the most authoritative and reliable resource you can get.How we know what is dogmatic is defined in Vatican I. However, we obviously don’t all have the time or studious inclination to study the documents for conformity to Vatican I criteria. I wonder if there is a reliable list of Papal Bulls, edicts, etc. which are to be considered dogmatic. Any suggestions, anyone?
I know I’ve looked - there are small lists of infallible pronouncements from the Chair of St. Peter concerning dogma, but I’ve been unable to find a comprehensive list from that Vatican on a lot of the smaller issues like Limbo of the Infants.I wonder if there is a reliable list of Papal Bulls, edicts, etc. which are to be considered dogmatic. Any suggestions, anyone?
This is correct. As demonstrated by the fact that Pope Pius IX i (not a modernist in any meaningful sense of the word) said this:As I understand it, the best interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” is that whoever is saved receives salvation, whether they know it or not, through the Church by means of the mystery of G-d’s mercy. The proclamation does NOT mean that people must be Catholic to be saved.
With regard to the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore, it would stand to reason that the mercy of G-d can also apply to those Catholics (and non-Catholics) who were not baptized. G-d is NOT bound by the Sacraments even though people are.
Think for a moment what it would mean according to the other interpretation. It would mean that G-d cannot show mercy because He is limited to the rules that He Himself instituted. It would also mean that infants, through no fault of their own, are being punished by G-d because they have not obeyed the rules of the Church, despite their not having any choice in the matter. Therefore, not only would there be a lack of mercy on the part of G-d, but a lack of justice as well.
A search of the forum will turn up reams and reams of discussion on this topic.Many modernists do promulgate this idea, but I do not believe it is what the Church teaches:
Pope Leo XII,* Ubi Primum (# 14)*, May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
I don’t know, at the moment, if Ubi Primum is dogmatic, but there are many other Papal proclamations that state this same thing. Also, the Athanasius Creed, which we are bound to not only believe, but also to profess to the world, states "one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
I hope this doesn’t appear uncharitable. I am just trying to be honest about our Faith. I certainly want all men and women of good will, particularly my friends on this forum, to be saved. If that means the necessity of the Catholic faith, then I certainly would not want to cover up this crucial information.
Maybe we should start a new thread on this related topic.
Yes. Also, once saved, a person IS part of the Church. In other words, no one can be in Heaven without being part of the Church, even if they weren’t explicitly Catholic in this world.This is correct. As demonstrated by the fact that Pope Pius IX i (not a modernist in any meaningful sense of the word) said this:
It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. But then, who would dare to set limits to this ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of people., lands, native talents, and so many other factors (Singulari Quadem)
So yes, we do need the Church. It’s not optional. But it is possible for someone to be saved outside of the visible boundaries of the Church if they are there through no fault of their own. I also don’t see why the same principle would not apply to unbaptized infants.
Don’t forget (from a previous post), Singulari Quadem was a letter to Cardinals, not addressed to the whole Church, and thus not dogmatic. I believe that Ubi Primum was dogmatic, though I will accept correction if someone can show me otherwise.This is correct. As demonstrated by the fact that Pope Pius IX i (not a modernist in any meaningful sense of the word) said this:
It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. But then, who would dare to set limits to this ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of people., lands, native talents, and so many other factors (Singulari Quadem)
.