Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus VS Vatican II

[lukewberg]

I don’t see how. I addressed the “God is not bound by his sacraments” statement already, if you’d kindly refer back to the early replies. My questions are in my original post.

 

[thistle]

infant baptism is the only way to save infants from damnation,

That is part of it but not the whole. That is the only way God gave the Church to save infants but as is taught by the Church God is not bound by the Sacrament of Baptism. That is why we entrust such infants to the mercy of God.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Okay, it seems you want to talk about invincible ignorance with respect to infants whether it’s moot or not.

Have you read the statement of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission on the matter? It discusses the historical context in detail.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[lukewberg]

Forgive me, but a council has explicitly told us what happens to unbaptized infants, as I have detailed. So how can you apply that argument when the matter has been answered in such an abundantly clear and concise manner. It seems that you are trying to apply something from the catechism to an infallible statement, to effectively reverse the meaning and implications of an infallible teaching. The can’t both be right.

 

[lukewberg]

Sort of, I want to discuss weather invincible ignorance is even something that can be claimed when the Church has taught that even infants are damned of outside the Church (by way of lacking baptism).

I have not read that, but on the assumption that you have, I would ask that you point me to the area of this document that you wish for me to read.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would like you to read ALL of it because I think it would be extremely helpful for you to understand the historical context, including the different views of the early Church fathers on the matter.

It’s not that long.

 

[thistle]

I would ask that you point me to the area of this document that you wish for me to read.

The whole document.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I want to discuss weather invincible ignorance is even something that can be claimed when the Church has taught that even infants are damned of outside the Church (by way of lacking baptism).

To acknowledge the possibility of invisible ignorance is simply to acknowledge that we do not know the mind of God. We cannot place boundaries on the mercy of God. It is impossible.

Acknowledging the transcendent nature of our faith does not conflict with our understanding of the ordinary means of salvation.

 

[jesusmademe]

A: Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation,

Isn’t that a heresey?

 

[thistle]

Isn’t that a heresey?

No it is not a heresy. Why would you think its a heresy?

 

[jesusmademe]

“All non-baptised people will go to hell!” is how I read the statement. That would be heresey.
Did I missunderstood the qoute/statement?

 

[Sirach2]

Sort of, I want to discuss weather invincible ignorance is even something that can be claimed when the Church has taught that even infants are damned of outside the Church (by way of lacking baptism).

That’s a pretty strong assertion, for not even the Church has made such a claim that infants are “damned.” Formerly, there was the theory that they go to Limbo, a place apart from heaven, but not the hell of the damned.
We just don’t know their ultimate fate and can only speculate that the loving mercy of God will provide a special place of beatitude (happiness) while not allowing them into paradise.

This is not to say that one ought to defer infant baptism as soon as possible after birth, for the teaching of the Church is to be heeded and trusted.

 

[Salibi]

Not heresy, but an oversimplification. It ignores a lot of theological nuances and attempts to impose a certain mode of action on God himself.

Generally, those who die without baptism, after having heard of Christ, known of Christians, etc… and made the conscious decision to reject Christ will be punished in the afterlife as per Church teaching.

Babies are a whole other matter entirely. God is not bound by His Sacraments or His Law; He may choose to save unbaptised babies in His infinite mercy… or He may choose not to. We don’t know. Which is why we say we entrust the souls of the departed to the mercy of God. Even unbaptised adults aren’t necessarily in Hell. It’s all up to God.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

“All non-baptised people will go to hell!” is how I read the statement. That would be heresey.
Did I missunderstood the qoute/statement?

Yes you misunderstood it.

It said “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.” Not “all non-baptized people go to Hell” (which would be a statement against Church teaching).

If a person is “non-baptized”, it is entirely possible that God in certain circumstances may provide for them the “necessary” baptism upon their death and indeed that is what the Church teaches - that God provides the graces of baptism in certain situations where a person on earth didn’t receive the actual water baptism.

It’s important that you read the words the Church puts forth and do not rewrite them in your own words.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

for not even the Church has made such a claim that infants are “damned.” Formerly, there was the theory that they go to Limbo, a place apart from heaven, but not the hell of the damned.

If you read the statement of the International Commission that I posted, there were theologians who believed and taught that the infants were indeed “damned” and other theologians who believed and taught the so-called Limbo of Infants.

Neither position was the official position of the Church, which left the question of unbaptized infants open for centuries.

The view that infants who died unbaptized were “damned” fell out of favor with the sensus fidelium over the centuries, for obvious reasons.

 

[GordonP]

It’s important that you read the words the Church puts forth and do not rewrite them in your own words.

@lukewberg
That’s one vital piece of advice, and I’ll give you another:

Always read any statement you find in scripture or church documents in their proper theological and historical context, and not as “stand alone” statements, as Protestant fundamentalists do. There is no “plain reading” in Catholic theology. Otherwise you’re going to end up confused, and draw extremely erroneous or downright heretical conclusions.

 

[Sirach2]

If you read the statement of the International Commission that I posted, there were theologians who believed and taught that the infants were indeed “damned” and other theologians who believed and taught the so-called Limbo of Infants.

Theologians who hold/held such positions of damnation were not speaking for the universal Church through a particular encyclical, however. I am not aware that the Church Herself has ever stated that these infants are damned.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You are correct that the Church never took an official position on where unbaptized infants actually went (Hell, Heaven, or Limbo of Infants).

I believe there was a push for Vatican II to adopt the Limbo of Infants teaching officially, which didn’t happen.

 

[pnewton]

Is it to myself, or to Pope Eugene IV?

The current Pope is Pope Francis. He is the only one allowed to set norms for baptism at this time. That is all you quoted. It was said that waiting periods for baptism where not to be used.

. The contradictions come from a council’s infallible teaching that infant baptism is the only way to save infants from damnation,

That is not what the quote says. It says baptism is the only remedy available. It says baptism snatches them away from the devil. The Church has never defined the fate of unbaptized infants. You are new here. Your first post is arguing a position that must lead to sedevacantism, that is, if you follow through with the logic that the Second Vatican council contradicted a previous ecumenical council. The Catechism is our norm for doctrine, promulgated by a Saint and a Pope. It is the Church’s teaching. Arguing against it is arguing against the teaching of the Catholic Church and really has no point. Ideally, if this is to continue, this should be moved over to the non-Catholic site where the Catholic faith is discussed by those who do not agree with the Catholic faith.

 

[pnewton]

Sort of, I want to discuss weather invincible ignorance is even something that can be claimed

That is Church teaching, so on a Catholic website, it is not something just to be claimed, but accepted with faith by Catholics. Lest this be seen as a Vatican II innovation, I would note that Fr. Feeney was admonished for heresy around 1950 for claiming the necessity of baptism for salvation.