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

[clem456]

Here are some “past infallible teachings”:

I’m sorry, but that’s a stretch. It seems you are forcing me to conclude:

"5. The true Magisterium is consistent. One of the propositions actually belong to a different religion".

But, I am not yet willing to conclude that.

What do you think of this, specifically? I posted this yesterday and I am curious what you think about it.

clem456 wrote
How can the Magisterium proclaim seemingly contradictory statements about baptism? The answer is they don’t contradict, the successive statements complete one another, they grow and “flower”. The Church is organic, it is a growing organism, because Christ has defeated death and lives. The Church is not static, dead in the tomb, or dead in the words of “sola scriptura” or “Papal Bull”, or the Council of Trent. The Church and it’s Magisterium lives and breathes (inspira) with all that came before, all that is, and all that will come.

Quote:
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:

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

How can it be possible that the expression of doctrine can grow?
Consider:
At the birth of the Church there were no explicit formulations of doctrine, no explicit papal statements etc…
I think you can see that the nascent Magisterium had no explicit statement of the Trinity, no statement of the Eucharist, no statement of Baptism. The seed of Catholic doctrine and dogma is alive within them. Christ’s words had been spoken, and the living Church begins to understand them and give them to the world, as his revelation grows in their hearts and minds.

 

[SteveVH]

The catechism you provide is inescapable. I thank you for confronting the issue directly, though this causes a dilemma for me. Could you follow up with what the faithful are to conclude?

To do so, I’d like to reiterate two proclamations for sake of comparison, without attribution of the source, only to present the positions as dispassionately as possible in the interests of logical analysis:

Proposition A

“Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved”.

Proposition B

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Now which of the following is to be concluded?

1. Magisterial teachings of the Church are contradictory (Unthinkable to me).

2. There is no contradiction. The two propositions can be reconciled and their original meaning maintained. (How?)

3. The Magisterium is consistent, but one (or both) proposition contains human error and is not to be taken “de fide”

4. The Magisterium is consistent, but Her teachings evolve. They can change with the times or with the prevailing culture. (The Living Magisterium?)

5. The true Magisterium is consistent. One of the propositions actually belong to a different religion.

6. Other. (Please specify)

.

I see no contradiction here at all. When referring to one who “says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation” one must conclude that it is referring to one who does know the Gospel of Christ and his Church, rather than one who is ignorant. Or one must assume that the magisterium itself is ignorant of a theological contradiction in its statements. I find that possibility highly unlikely.

 

[Marie5890]

I have utmost faith in God’s most perfect mercy, thus, yes, I do believe with utmost certainty that they do.

Otherwise I would be denying God’s mercy.

 

[rogergosselin]

What do you think of this, specifically? I posted this yesterday and I am curious what you think about it.

I am not ignoring your previous post. The solution you offer: “2. There is no contradiction. The two propositions can be reconciled and their original meaning maintained.” is the most appealing to me, if I can bring myself to honestly accept it. Currently I am giving careful consideration to Post 469 and will respond soon.

For now, I will comment on what you “snipped”: “They (the Church’s teachings) change with the times or with the prevailing culture.” I appereciate the emphasis that places on the idea that we can grow in understanding the faith while maintaining sacred Tradition; that “The Church and its Magisterium lives and breathes” and Her current life did not require an amputation.

I do bristle a little at the implication that Papal Bulls or the Council of Trent are dead. No, they are part of the richness of our Faith and represent our fuller understanding, beyond “sola scriptura”, with the guidance of Peter.

I would also take a minor exception to the statement: “At the birth of the Church there were no explicit formulations of doctrine…” Many scriptural passages are explicit and doctrinal. I believe that you hold scripture to be the inerrant word of God. Please believe that I embrace the chair of Peter when elucidating Scripture.

.

 

[clem456]

I am not ignoring your previous post. The solution you offer: “2. There is no contradiction. The two propositions can be reconciled and their original meaning maintained.” is the most appealing to me, if I can bring myself to honestly accept it. Currently I am giving careful consideration to Post 469 and will respond soon.

For now, I will comment on what you “snipped”: “They (the Church’s teachings) change with the times or with the prevailing culture.” I appereciate the emphasis that places on the idea that we can grow in understanding the faith while maintaining sacred Tradition; that “The Church and its Magisterium lives and breathes” and Her current life did not require an amputation.

I do bristle a little at the implication that Papal Bulls or the Council of Trent are dead. No, they are part of the richness of our Faith and represent our fuller understanding, beyond “sola scriptura”, with the guidance of Peter.

Please note I didn’t say these are dead. There is crucial difference:

clem456
How can the Magisterium proclaim seemingly contradictory statements about baptism? The answer is they don’t contradict, the successive statements complete one another, they grow and “flower”. The Church is organic, it is a growing organism, because Christ has defeated death and lives. The Church is not static, dead in the tomb, or dead in the words of “sola scriptura” or “Papal Bull”, or the Council of Trent.

Because the Church lives in Christ it (the Church) is not dead in the words of a past council or Pope.
If we insist the Church is limited to the words of the year 1500, we are proclaiming the death of the Church. and the death of the words you are quoting from that point in Tradition. By insisting on limiting the Church to the words of the past, you are proposing the death of those words, which is not what you intend to do, right? The words from Trent only live if the Church itself is living and growing, because the words come to life in Christ. The Church is his Mystical Body.
Living entities grow.
That’s expressed here:

clem456
The Church and it’s Magisterium lives and breathes (inspira) with all that came before, all that is, and all that will come.

Roger:
I would also take a minor exception to the statement: “At the birth of the Church there were no explicit formulations of doctrine…” Many scriptural passages are explicit and doctrinal. I believe that you hold scripture to be the inerrant word of God. Please believe that I embrace the chair of Peter when elucidating Scripture.
.

Yes that is true. But the formulations of doctrine that you are hanging your Baptismal beliefs on had not yet been proclaimed explicitly. These explicit doctrines you have been quoting-grew- out of the seed that was present in Christ , which continued to grow in the living Church. But they were not understood and proclaimed in the same fullness of understanding at Pentecost as they were 1500 years later. Right?
Consider:
When the council of Trent proclaimed doctrine, do you think people such as yourself said
“show me where it says…” and "show me how that’s not contradictory with what was said at the Council of xyz?,
…looking to past formulations (or lack of them) and seeing contradictions in what Trent presently proclaimed.

At any point in history, you can point to growth in understanding, or you would not have these formulations from the past to quote.

 

[rogergosselin]

I see no contradiction here at all. When referring to one who “says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation” one must conclude that it is referring to one who does know the Gospel of Christ and his Church, rather than one who is ignorant.

Yes, and that person, who knowingly witholds his assent, is “anathema” (lost, condemned).

Maybe I am missing your point. If so, can you rephrase?

 

[clem456]

Yes, and that person, who knowingly witholds his assent, is “anathema” (lost, condemned).

Should give all pause to reflect.

 

[rogergosselin]

Please note I didn’t say these are dead. There is crucial difference:

OK, noted.

If we insist the Church is limited to the words of the year 1500, we are proclaiming the death of the Church and the death of the words you are quoting from that point in Tradition. By insisting on limiting the Church to the words of the past, you are proposing the death of those words, which is not what you intend to do, right? .

Right.

I don’t insist on limiting the Church to the words of the past. I insist that the current teaching of the Church be compatible with the perennial teaching of the Church. That is also a crucial difference. It means that I agree with:

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.”

So, on what basis can we object to the words from 1500 AD, or, for that matter, to the words from 30-33 AD? The present day magisterium “cannot stand without the others”.

Yes that is true. But the formulations of doctrine that you are hanging your Baptismal beliefs on had not yet been proclaimed explicitly. These explicit doctrines you have been quoting-grew- out of the seed that was present in Christ , which continued to grow in the living Church. But they were not understood and proclaimed in the same fullness of understanding at Pentecost as they were 1500 years later. Right? .

Right.

Consider:
When the council of Trent proclaimed doctrine, do you think people such as yourself said “show me where it says…” and "show me how that’s not contradictory with what was said at the Council of xyz?, …looking to past formulations (or lack of them) and seeing contradictions in what Trent presently proclaimed. .

Of course not. There were no such contradictions; not among Sripture, the Magisterium, and Sacred Tradition. Not that there were not errors or theological debate, but after the Pontiff solemnly defines a doctrine we “grow in understanding”.

On the other hand, if we obstinately (that is with full understanding and imposition of our own will) oppose a dogma, that constitutes heresy, and separates us from the Body of Christ.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Cardinal Ratzinger: "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him’ (John 3:16-17). In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: ‘[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all’ " (1 Timothy 2:4-6).
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Jesus, n. 13.

Scripture and the Magisterium teach that God wills all human persons to be saved. So how can it be the case that unbaptized prenatals end up in the limbo of Hell, deprived forever of the Beatific Vision and all the blessings of Heaven? It cannot be the case. And since prenatals cannot be baptized with water, they must have a different path available: either a baptism of desire or of blood.

My opinion is that we must broadened our understanding of the baptism of blood, to include these innocents whose great suffering of dying at such a young age unites them to Christ on the Cross. Christ then grants to them salvific grace before death. For if unbaptized prenatals, infants, and little children are not saved, despite their lack of personal sin, then the universal salvific will of God would be thwarted by accidents, disease, injury, and abortion. And that cannot be true.

Pope Pius IX:
“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7]

Prenatals, infants, and little children are not guilty of deliberate sin, and so they do not suffer the eternal punishment of the deprivation of the Vision of God, which is the chief punishment of Hell.

“The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.” (CCC 1035)

 

[Ron_Conte]

I insist that the current teaching of the Church be compatible with the perennial teaching of the Church.

You insist that current magisterial teaching be compatible with your own interpretation of the perennial teaching of the Church. If it is not, then the error is either in the recent teachings of the Magisterium – including Vatican II, Pope Saint John Paul II, and the Catechism – or you have misunderstood. Why is it so beyond imagining that your own interpretation of perennial teaching might be in error? And the main error is that you oversimplify; you don’t allow a more complex and subtle interpretation, for some reason.

I’ve studied magisterial sources on salvation and I see no contradiction, only a development of doctrine. The teaching on salvation becomes more subtle and complex as the Church progresses through time.

As for Scriptural sources, you cite some verses and ignore others. What about Jesus proclaiming the great faith of the Centurion (non-Jew, non-Christian)? The Centurion could not have great faith unless he was in a state of grace, but he was not baptized with water. Then there is the woman of Canaan, who was not a Jew or a Christian, and she too had great faith. Therefore, persons who lack formal baptism can still obtain a non-formal baptism of desire.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, and that person, who knowingly witholds his assent, is “anathema” (lost, condemned).

Maybe I am missing your point. If so, can you rephrase?

Two propositions were given:

Proposition A

“Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved”.

Proposition B

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

If Proposition B is referencing one that is not ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and his Church and yet states that Baptism is not necessary for salvation he is condemned. On the other hand, if one is ignorant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his Church he is saved if he does the will of God in accordance with his understanding. In other words, if he was not aware of the necessity of Baptism but otherwise lived in accordance with God’s will he can be saved.

Where is the contradiction?

 

[rogergosselin]

Scripture and the Magisterium teach that God wills all human persons to be saved. So how can it be the case that unbaptized prenatals end up in the limbo of Hell, deprived forever of the Beatific Vision and all the blessings of Heaven? It cannot be the case. And since prenatals cannot be baptized with water, they must have a different path available: either a baptism of desire or of blood. )

For that matter, since God wills all humans to be saved, how can it be that anyone at all goes to Hell?

How can it be that newborns inherit the sin of Adam?

The answer of course, is that it is a mystery that will be revealed in time. That is not to say that the Holy Spirit leaves us rudderless. The Spirit elucidates us from the Chair of Peter. We can “grow in understanding” by heeding what is revealed.

But to deny doctrine, to simply say “It cannot be the case”, and then apply human reasoning to justify the existence of a different path, that is, indeed, creating a god of your own personal liking.

My opinion is that we must broadened our understanding of the baptism of blood, to include these innocents whose great suffering of dying at such a young age unites them to Christ on the Cross. Christ then grants to them salvific grace before death. )

Your opinion contradicts what was revealed, ex cathedra, by Pope Eugene IV. See [post=12720664]link to post 474[/post]. So, what are we to make of your previous assertion that:

I don’t think we should give any weight to fallible personal interpretations of a past infallible teaching when these are contrary to the interpretation and understanding presented by the Magisterium.

---

For if unbaptized prenatals, infants, and little children are not saved, despite their lack of personal sin, then the universal salvific will of God would be thwarted by accidents, disease, injury, and abortion. And that cannot be true. )

So, God is not capable of providing for the elect?

Pope Pius IX:
“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7] )

See [post=12668804]link to post 189[/post]

You insist that current magisterial teaching be compatible with your own interpretation of the perennial teaching of the Church. If it is not, then the error is either in the recent teachings of the Magisterium – including Vatican II, Pope Saint John Paul II, and the Catechism – or you have misunderstood. Why is it so beyond imagining that your own interpretation of perennial teaching might be in error? And the main error is that you oversimplify; you don’t allow a more complex and subtle interpretation, for some reason.

I suppose I am just simple minded. However, it is not fair to accuse me, both of oversimplifying and overinterpreting, at the same time.

Why don’t you give a specific example of something I have quoted, and your reasoning for how I have provided an incorrect interpretation. I might actually agree with you, to some degree. I have done so previously with other posters.

As for Scriptural sources, you cite some verses and ignore others. What about Jesus proclaiming the great faith of the Centurion (non-Jew, non-Christian)? The Centurion could not have great faith unless he was in a state of grace, but he was not baptized with water… Therefore, persons who lack formal baptism can still obtain a non-formal baptism of desire.

The Centurion could not have great faith because He was in the state of original sin? Then that would also apply to catechumens, not yet baptized. I believe the Catholic Church still teaches that “actual grace” can lead to “sanctifying grace”. So, certainly the centurion could subsequently have received sacramental baptism.

You say I ignore Scriptural sources. You must have missed my discussion of The Good Thief and the Holy Innocents. With respect to our Lord’s commission to baptize, they fall into the same category as the Centurion. I can provide links, if you require.

Therefore, persons who lack formal baptism can still obtain a non-formal baptism of desire.

Yes, that’s true. Stephen, the first convert, is a preeminent example. His “baptism” of desire led him to the Faith. Stephen’s desire for baptism, as expressed by his faith, was an “actual grace”. The apostles, recognizing this, quickly brought Stephen to Water/Spirit baptism. They did so prudently, not foolishly.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Centurion could not have great faith because He was in the state of original sin? Then that would also apply to catechumens, not yet baptized. I believe the Catholic Church still teaches that “actual grace” can lead to “sanctifying grace”. So, certainly the centurion could subsequently have received sacramental baptism.

Faith is a theological virtue (love, faith, hope) and it is only received by infusion with the state of grace. So a person who has not yet received sanctifying grace through some form of baptism cannot have any of the theological virtues, though they can cooperate with actual graces, as you said.

For our Savior to proclaim to all that the Centurion had “great faith”, he must have had the infused theological virtue, and not merely some limited cooperation with actual graces.

A catechumen who has faith prior to formal baptism, has received a baptism of desire, so he is in a state of grace and his sins have been forgiven. Then, when baptized formally, he receives the indelible character, forgiveness from temporal punishment, and fuller graces, as St. Thomas describes:

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.”

The quote from Pope Eugene, which is from the Council of Florence, falls under Conciliar infallibility, not Papal infallibility. The Magisterium teaches a baptism of blood (CCC 1258), therefore your interpretation, rejecting a baptism of blood, is in error. That infallible teaching is correct: no one earns their salvation, and no one enters life without some form of baptism. But your interpretation is contrary to current magisterial teaching, since you reject or at least greatly narrow baptisms of desire and blood.

 

[rogergosselin]

Faith is a theological virtue (love, faith, hope) and it is only received by infusion with the state of grace. So a person who has not yet received sanctifying grace through some form of baptism (sic) cannot have any of the theological virtues, though they can cooperate with actual graces, as you said.
For our Savior to proclaim to all that the Centurion had “great faith”, he must have had the infused theological virtue, and not merely some limited cooperation with actual graces. .

Yes, I see your point. Since our Savior proclaimed “great faith” the power of His word actually conveys the theological virtue, “saving grace”, not the limited grace that I earlier implied.

Notwithstanding this, the Centurion, the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents, Moses, Abraham, etc., were all saved under the dispensation of the Old Law. As stated at Trent, the law of sacramental baptism did not become binding till Jesus made His commission for it, after His Resurrection. Stephen’s conversion, occurring during the time of the Acts of the Apostles bound him to sacramental baptism.

A catechumen who has faith prior to formal baptism, has received a baptism of desire, so he is in a state of grace and his sins have been forgiven. Then, when baptized formally, he receives the indelible character, forgiveness from temporal punishment, and fuller graces, as St. Thomas describes.

St. Thomas, in the Summa Theologica, also taught that “The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.” May I assume that you believe in the Immaculate Conception as declared by the dogmatic council of Vatican I?

Yes, St. Thomas also taught that baptism of desire and baptism of blood can place humans in the state of grace, but that was a few centuries before the Council of Trent. Since he did not have the fuller understanging from Peter, he was not in heresy.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis(# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.”
Furthermore, even if you do insist on limiting yourself to a 13th century understanding of baptism of desire, it cannot allay your concern for aborted babies. An unborn child cannot desire baptism, nor shed his blood in the name of Christ, simply because his faculties are not sufficiently developed to make it possible.

The early doctors of the Church who intimated the possibility of desire as sufficient for salvation posited this only for catechumens.

The quote from Pope Eugene, which is from the Council of Florence, falls under Conciliar infallibility, not Papal infallibility. The Magisterium teaches a baptism of blood (CCC 1258), therefore your interpretation, rejecting a baptism of blood, is in error. That infallible teaching is correct: no one earns their salvation, and no one enters life without some form of baptism. But your interpretation is contrary to current magisterial teaching, since you reject or at least greatly narrow baptisms of desire and blood.

I’m sorry, but these statements betray a severe misunderstanding of what constitute the rule of Faith. It requires no theological training to comprehend that “infallibility” is not a relative term. If a statement is truly infallible it makes no difference whether it comes from a council, directly from the Pope, or from Bob, or from Mary. To say that a dogmatic council does not derive its infallible character through Papal proclamation is also incorrect.

Additionally, it is incorrect to state that a catechism constitutes the Magisterium, unless that catechism has been promulgated dogmatically.

From what I understand from previous posters, the current catechism has been promulgated as a “sure norm” for the faithful. If someone demonstrates to me that it is promulgated dogmatically, then I will admit, that would be a game changer for me.

.

 

[Ignatius]

My question isn’t “Is it possible?” but rather “Are you certain?”
.

Scripture does not state explicitly that unbaptized babies go to heaven, so how are you certain of that extra biblical belief?

 

[rogergosselin]

Proposition A

“Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved”.

Proposition B

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Two propositions were given:
If Proposition B is referencing one that is not ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and his Church and yet states that Baptism is not necessary for salvation he is condemned. On the other hand, if one is ignorant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his Church he is saved if he does the will of God in accordance with his understanding. In other words, if he was not aware of the necessity of Baptism but otherwise lived in accordance with God’s will he can be saved.
Where is the contradiction?

OK, I see the difficulty here. Proposition B is stated indirectly.

Proposition B is not referencing only those who are ignorant of the Gospel. It is referencing anyone: “If anyone says that … “ Therefore, according to B, anyone who claims Proposition A is condemned.

But if A is true, that would mean that Jesus condemns something that is true, which is impossible, because Jesus is the Truth.

To be frank, I now wish that I had chosen different propositions. It is really the enumerated implications that I am concerned with. If I had it to do over again I might have chosen something more direct, such as:

Proposition A
” Baptism is the one path to Heaven, but it exists in three forms:

1. the formal Sacrament of baptism by water
2. non-formal baptism by desire, which can be implicit
3. non-formal baptism of blood”

Proposition B
“If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

However, the original choice seemed more appropriate to the discussion at the time. If I were to change it now, it might appear dishonest of me.

 

[clem456]

From what I understand from previous posters, the current catechism has been promulgated as a “sure norm” for the faithful. If someone demonstrates to me that it is promulgated dogmatically, then I will admit, that would be a game changer for me.

.

If you don’t think the following asks for the assent of your faith, whether or not you were dunked in the font is the least of your worries…
I pray that your heart is opened.

**APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM **

ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

To my Venerable Brothers the cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and to all the People of God.
…
3. 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.
PJP2 sig

 

[rogergosselin]

If you don’t think the following asks for the assent of your faith, whether or not you were dunked in the font is the least of your worries…
I pray that your heart is opened.

When the Church speaks, we give the Church our “good faith” (bona fides),…
892 … 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. .

[POST=12717433]In Post 468[/POST] I said that the catechism you provided is inescapable. I thanked you for it! Does that not indicate religious assent?

Now I simply ask if the Church demands that we also consider the whole catechism to be dogmatic and infallible (“assent of faith”). But you insinuate bad will on my part for doing so, and with a putative prayer!

That determination of “de fide” is critical for what we are to conclude from the various teachings on baptism. I would like to give “The Doctrinal Value of the Text”, which you provided, the attention that it deserves. But at the moment, you have left me too distracted to do so.

Until I can revisit this document, I would welcome opinions, especially if someone could find an authoritative source for exegesis on this text.

 

[Porknpie]

Assuming I one day become Catholic, I do really need help understanding what kind of mental gymnastics I would need to actually believe this.

I can’t imagine an objective, non-Catholic reader ever looking at this and making any sense of it without a darn good explanation. There’s really no way around it.

Pope says [X] Pope was just giving opinion; even though Pope seemed really serious.

Dronald -

Keep in mind the definition & understanding of mortal sin, paraphrased: willfully persisting in serious sin. All three terms are necessary for a sin to be mortal. To die in mortal sin is to reject God’s everlasting friendship. We do it to ourselves, quite willingly.

The Catechism’s words are here.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Dronald -

Keep in mind the definition & understanding of mortal sin, paraphrased: willfully persisting in serious sin. All three terms are necessary for a sin to be mortal. To die in mortal sin is to reject God’s everlasting friendship. We do it to ourselves, quite willingly.

The Catechism’s words are here.

Hi Porknpie–I took it that Dronald was referencing the “in original sin alone” part, not the “in mortal sin” part?