Do you believe with utmost certainty that unbaptized babies go to Heaven?

[rogergosselin]

Instead of asking around and coming up empty, perhaps you should have done the most convenient thing, : consult your Catechism.

It’s available online if you don’t have one.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1258.htm

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Convenient, yes, but has this Catechism been declared “de fide?” The Baltimore Catechism has not, nor even the Catechism of Trent (not the same as the Council of Trent), and both contain human errors.

St. Cyprian, Tertullian, and a small number of other Church fathers can be quoted in favor of what is called “baptism of blood,” But there were hundreds of Church fathers. So the idea of “… always held the firm conviction…” seems suspect to me.

Additionally, St. Cyprian and Tertullian taught that this “baptism of blood” applied only to catechumens (those seeking Sacramental Baptism ).

Some of the fathers use the term “baptism of blood” to describe the Catholic martyrdom of one already baptized,** not as a possible replacement for water baptism**. If that possibly is the sense of the term from your citation, then we can conform to it. [P.S. Upon rereading the citation, I don’t think it is possible.]
St. John Damascene:
“These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers — thus they strove,** after Holy Baptism**, to keep… spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.”

I am not aware of “baptism of blood” being taught in a Papal Encyclical as a replacement for Sacramental Baptism. So, since there is discord in this matter, let’s apply the principal stated by Isiaiah45_9 (though I think he and I would both agree that the catechisms hold a much higher status than mere opinion):

You are correct. The keywords to consider are: Church, Faith, and Roman Pontiff…
… Anything, Anyone says is just an Opinion, until the Church and/or the Pope declares what is or isn’t infallible.

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
I admit to not being comfortable with this definition, on a personal or sentimental level, but I am compelled to accept it. Maybe it would be fruitful to discuss how it conforms to God’s mercy.

 

[clem456]

That’s an entire new subject and not what we are discussing.

Asking about a matter of faith is done because at the very minimum it has been glanced. At the very best, it has been read and meditated upon.

:tiphat:

Then why did you bring the subject up? Who said we are not have inquisitive and questioning minds? You extrapolated.
I pointed out that the poster does everything but read what the Church currently teaches. That we should be docile to the Holy Spirit. Reading, praying, listening to the Church. And now you must take issue with it. So?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Convenient, yes, but has this Catechism been declared “de fide?” The Baltimore Catechism has not, nor even the Catechism of Trent (not the same as the Council of Trent), and both contain human errors.

Good question.

From Fidei Depositum:

1. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.
At the conclusion of this document presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, to support with her powerful intercession the catechetical work of the entire Church on every level, at this time when she is called to a new effort of evangelization. May the light of the true faith free humanity from the ignorance and slavery of sin in order to lead it to the only freedom worthy of the name (cf. Jn 8:32): that of life in Jesus Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, here below and in the Kingdom of heaven, in the fullness of the blessed vision of God face to face (cf. 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6-8)!
Given 11 October 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate.

I am not aware of “baptism of blood” being taught in a Papal Encyclical as a replacement for Sacramental Baptism. So, since there is discord in this matter, let’s apply the principal stated by Isiaiah45_9 (though I think he and I would both agree that the catechisms hold a much higher status than mere opinion):

Absolutely. When I mention opinion - I don’t express that it doesn’t hold authority and/or value. But that there is no final answer to such a matter from an infallible vehicle/form.

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
I admit to not being comfortable with this definition, on a personal or sentimental level, but I am compelled to accept it. Maybe it would be fruitful to discuss how it conforms to God’s mercy.

Yeah, definitely a thread on its own

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Then why did you bring the subject up? Who said we are not have inquisitive and questioning minds? You extrapolated.
I pointed out that the poster does everything but read what the Church currently teaches. That we should be docile to the Holy Spirit. Reading, praying, listening to the Church. And now you must take issue with it. So?

Reading, praying, listening. Noted.

Because your post came as a form of criticism for those that ask questions. At least in my fallible opinion.

:tiphat:

 

[clem456]

Convenient, yes, but has this Catechism been declared “de fide?”
…

What would it take to gain your trust of the living Magisterium?

 

[clem456]

Reading, praying, listening. Noted.

Because your post came as a form of criticism for those that ask questions. At least in my fallible opinion.

:tiphat:

Not a criticism of questions.

 

[clem456]

Reading, praying, listening. Noted.

Because your post came as a form of criticism for those that ask questions. At least in my fallible opinion.

:tiphat:

Somehow it strikes me as odd that a poster can exhaustively quote from arcane Church documents from 300-400-700 years ago…Pope Pius VI and Eugene IV and Pope Boniface, Council of Trent, Council of Florence, Ubi Primum, Unam Sanctum. On and on it goes.

These things take hours (years?) of research and learning to find, absorb , organize, quote, and post. (Or we copy and paste them from handy summaries ) The amount of deliberation required is considerable.
And yet the simple teaching from the current Catechism of the Catholic Church? Not once mentioned. In fact when it is quoted face to face to the poster, it is ignored, as if it does not exist.

So, we are to believe that such a poster has good faith questions.
Right?
Seems to me that’s an agenda, not a question.

 

[rogergosselin]

What would it take to gain your trust of the living Magisterium?

Conformance to the perennial Magisterium.

Pope Pius IX,* First Vatican Counci*l, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

 

[clem456]

Conformance to the perennial Magisterium.

But that wasn’t the question.
This was the question:

Originally Posted
What would it take to gain your trust of the living Magisterium?

Understanding of revelation develops. It has been developing since the birth of Christ, all through his life, death, and resurrection and beyond. We do not fully understand everything at any point in time.
**Please read the catechism for starters. **
The living Magisterium is the living Magisterium. It is not a centuries old book carved in stone. It is in continuity with the whole of Tradition, but it is organic. There cannot be a rupture in Tradition.

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;57 it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.58

• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”,59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60

• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.61

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

Any observations? Comments? Questions?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Somehow it strikes me as odd that a poster can exhaustively quote from arcane Church documents from 300-400-700 years ago…Pope Pius VI and Eugene IV and Pope Boniface, Council of Trent, Council of Florence, Ubi Primum, Unam Sanctum. On and on it goes.

These things take hours (years?) of research and learning to find, absorb , organize, quote, and post. (Or we copy and paste them from handy summaries ) The amount of deliberation required is considerable.
And yet the simple teaching from the current Catechism of the Catholic Church? Not once mentioned. In fact when it is quoted face to face to the poster, it is ignored, as if it does not exist.

So, we are to believe that such a poster has good faith questions.
Right?
Seems to me that’s an agenda, not a question.

We all have fallible opinions, do we not?

What seems to be clear for some individuals is not as clear to other individuals. If it was an agenda, it would show a tendency to promote said agenda. On the other hand is the agenda is missing, then there is a presence of things that can’t be reconciled in honesty. The fact that a significant amount of research is present demonstrates the honesty of the situations. Further, the lack of proper treatment and/or dismissal of said questions, taking into consideration the effort in their formulation, can only further the issue and non reconciled proposal and/or principles and/or doctrines/statement, et. al.

But if you suspect an agenda present. You should be able to articulate what the agenda is and how it is being promoted.

 

[meltzerboy]

Conformance to the perennial Magisterium.

Pope Pius IX,* First Vatican Counci*l, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

You might just as well have underlined the first use of the word UNDERSTANDING in this ex cathedra statement. There is no guarantee that the initial understanding is easy or does not require deep reflection. No need, therefore, to worry about deeper understanding.

What you really need to interpret these ex cathedra proclamations is a Talmudic scholar.

 

[PRmerger]

What you really need to interpret these ex cathedra proclamations is a Talmudic scholar.

Just a point of clarification: the examples given by roger were not ex cathedra proclamations.

 

[PRmerger]

Convenient, yes, but has this Catechism been declared “de fide?”

When we feel we can tear out pages of the Catechism because we don’t like what they say that makes us no better than Protestants.

The Catechism is, as Pope JP2 declared, the sure norm for the faith.

Again, this is what we profess as Catholics:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

QED

 

[clem456]

We all have fallible opinions, do we not?

What seems to be clear for some individuals is not as clear to other individuals. If it was an agenda, it would show a tendency to promote said agenda. On the other hand is the agenda is missing, then there is a presence of things that can’t be reconciled in honesty. The fact that a significant amount of research is present demonstrates the honesty of the situations. Further, the lack of proper treatment and/or dismissal of said questions, taking into consideration the effort in their formulation, can only further the issue and non reconciled proposal and/or principles and/or doctrines/statement, et. al.

But if you suspect an agenda present. You should be able to articulate what the agenda is and how it is being promoted.

Lest we be accused of “sola suspicion”…
Maybe someone has some comments, observations, questions, on what the catechism says in regard to the topic. I’ve posted it, others have referenced several times already but there seems to be a blind spot for the catechism. (it seems to be a growing disease on CAF that people like to tell everyone what the Church teaches and what it’s own words mean, but really have no idea, and can’t specifically discuss what it does actually teach).

I believe that God takes children to heaven. Their ignorance is about as invincible as it gets.

 

[rogergosselin]

Somehow it strikes me as odd that a poster can exhaustively quote from arcane Church documents from 300-400-700 years ago…Pope Pius VI and Eugene IV and Pope Boniface, Council of Trent, Council of Florence, Ubi Primum, Unam Sanctum. On and on it goes. .

And don’t forget, the Apostle John. He was even more arcane!

These things take hours (years?) of research and learning to find, absorb , organize, quote, and post. (Or we copy and paste them from handy summaries ) The amount of deliberation required is considerable.

You are absolutely correct. I must say, I admire your perspicacity; your benevolence, maybe not so much.

No, I do not have nearly the erudition, or time for that matter, to compile this kind of research on the Church, although some of the research is my own. I do, however, have the capacity to evaluate and reason. Or do you emtertain the absurd notion that my researchers have anticipated every post on Catholic Answers and have provided ready-made responses that deal directly with them? The research is not mostly mine, but the “deliberation” is.

Cutting and pasting with attribution to the orignal source, especially when the source is Scripture, the fathers of the Church, or Peter, himself, is entirely appropriate. Many posters do so to our benefit.

One of the posters told me that “Google is your friend”. Research on traditional Catholicism is all over the web. Am I to be ascribed as somehow pernicious, for availing myself of publicly available research? If anyone believes that I am not being forthright, I can certainly direct them to some of the educational material I have found. In that case I would have to trust the person would not use Ad Hominem attacks against the source, which would just detract from the issues.

And yet the simple teaching from the current Catechism of the Catholic Church? Not once mentioned. In fact when it is quoted face to face to the poster, it is ignored, as if it does not exist. .

Is the current teaching different from the perennial teaching?

So, we are to believe that such a poster has good faith questions. .

And there it is! The Ad Hominem attack. Not very charitable.Worse yet, it detracts from important issues.

Seems to me that’s an agenda, not a question.

The agenda is to discern the truth.

By the way, if you find any mispellings in this response, please don’t embarrass me by pointing them out. It was all cut and pasted.

 

[rogergosselin]

But that wasn’t the question. ?

My apologies. Let me give it another shot. Just to be clear, I take it that the catechism you are quoting serves as a definition of the Living Magisterium.

Understanding of revelation develops. It has been developing since the birth of Christ, all through his life, death, and resurrection and beyond. We do not fully understand everything at any point in time.
**Please read the catechism for starters. **
The living Magisterium is the living Magisterium. It is not a centuries old book carved in stone. It is in continuity with the whole of Tradition, but it is organic. There cannot be a rupture in Tradition.

Any observations? Comments? Questions?

My first observation is that I appreciate your statement that "There cannot be a rupture in Tradition. "

I have carefully read the passages you quoted, three times. I can profess that I emphatically agree and give consent to just about every word of it, with the caveat of one question:

What is the meaning of: “the sacred Scriptures ‘grow with the one who reads them’ ”? This seems inconsistent with “the apostolic preaching … was to be preserved …” I do fully embrace the concept that believers grow in understanding of the Faith, with the authoritative guidance of the apostles and their successors, but I would have to reject the idea that Sacred Scripture, itself, requires further development, as if Christ’s Word was somehow lacking.

If you can resolve that one issue for me, I would even endeavor to place your post in my secret stash of “handy summaries”.

 

[rogergosselin]

When we feel we can tear out pages of the Catechism because we don’t like what they say that makes us no better than Protestants.

The Catechism is, as Pope JP2 declared, the sure norm for the faith.

Again, this is what we profess as Catholics:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

QED

I would be loath to tear out pages from the Catechisms. Not even if I don’t like what they say. Such a thing is not to be considered, unless error can be proven.

On the other hand, for a Catholic to expurgate anything from the Deposit of Faith is simply impossible!

Before I can respond meaningfully to you, I need to know if we agree on the premise. Are we agreed that the issue before us is that 1) a statement from the Catechism, which Catholics are enjoined to hold as “a sure norm for the Faith”, contradicts, is contradicted by, or else is someway in conflict with 2) a statement by a Pope, which Catholics are enjoined to hold de fide?

 

[rogergosselin]

We all have fallible opinions, do we not?

What seems to be clear for some individuals is not as clear to other individuals. If it was an agenda, it would show a tendency to promote said agenda. On the other hand is the agenda is missing, then there is a presence of things that can’t be reconciled in honesty. The fact that a significant amount of research is present demonstrates the honesty of the situations. Further, the lack of proper treatment and/or dismissal of said questions, taking into consideration the effort in their formulation, can only further the issue and non reconciled proposal and/or principles and/or doctrines/statement, et. al.

But if you suspect an agenda present. You should be able to articulate what the agenda is and how it is being promoted.

Thank you so much. You have explained my motivation, better than I have been able to.

I do not wish to offend. I am troubled by what appear to be “ruptures in Tradition”.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Well, I guess that’s it, then. I’m no longer Catholic: I am sundered from the Church.

I cannot hold or accept a Feeneyite view of salvation, that reduces the sacrament of Baptism to a magic spell that prevents God from exercising His own power to save as He desires.

I mean, how do I even know I’m baptized, myself? I mean, I could work my behind off to love the Lord my God with all my heart and strength and mind, and love my neighbour as myself, and even die a martyr for my faith: only to end up at the Judgement and have God say, “Y’know, John, kudos on the effort down there! But it turns out that Fr O’Malley, the priest who ‘baptized’ you, withheld his intent at the time (he was having some issues), so unfortunately, it didn’t ‘take’…I’d love to save you, but, sorry, what can I do? My Hands are tied. Go to Hell.”

So where do I go now?

 

[PRmerger]

On the other hand, for a Catholic to expurgate anything from the Deposit of Faith is simply impossible!

You are very Catholic when you say this!

Before I can respond meaningfully to you, I need to know if we agree on the premise. Are we agreed that the issue before us is that 1) a statement from the Catechism, which Catholics are enjoined to hold as “a sure norm for the Faith”, contradicts, is contradicted by, or else is someway in conflict with 2) a statement by a Pope, which Catholics are enjoined to hold de fide?

We are in agreement about the issue before us.

We are NOT in agreement about your assertion.

It is only PROTESTANTS who proclaim that the Catechism is contradicted by any statements by prior Popes.

There is nothing in the Catechism which contradicts a de fide statement given by any prior Pope.