Freedom of Conscience

[Breton]

Wow. I had no idea this thread was headed in such a contentious direction.

I for one do not often have the opportunity - and am not nearly smart enough - to enter into a dialogue of this sort. As a “fly on the wall” I was hoping I could learn something here. Mark16_18’s conclusions regarding reen12’s personal papacy are so easy to JUMP to and are such a detriment to dialogue.

It is admirable if not required that we all investigate that which is proposed true before conforming our conscience to that truth; the Catholic Church certainly encourages such pursuit. There are those that enter these forums purely as agitators but I do not think that is the case with reen12’s original post.

As a Catholic, I do not agree with some of reen’s conclusions BUT I would like to understand where reen is coming from.

So reen, specifically regarding infants and original sin, I see that you interpret this passage from the Catechism as inconsistent with a perfectly merciful God.

For a child whose faculties of reason are not yet mature enough to be culpable for voluntary human acts (personal sin), they would remain in original sin if they are not sacramentally baptized or if God chooses not to extra-sacramentally baptize the child.

…and we can have legitamite hope that God will sanctify them…

Fair enough. Not to be argumentative but to understand, I think we (Jews and Christians) share a God that destroyed the earth with flood, destroyed Sodom, ended the lives of first born sons in Egypt, etc…. commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac – yikes! I contrast this God with the Catholic Church’s doctrine of original sin and our hope that God will be merciful to the unbaptized and I am not “stunned”.

If you’re still interested, I would like to hear more of your thoughts on original sin as well as “freedom of conscience”.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Breton,

I appreciate your words, in the post above.

I’ll be brief:

I could accept a theological reality, in which

Christ died for sins committed. That would

be consonant with Judaic thought, the

parent faith of Christianity. [In the sense of

a sin-offering.]

Christ, the Perfect Victim, I could accept.

Christ, as the Third Temple, would be a

cogent reality.

"Destroy this Temple, and I will rebuild it

in three days."

Christ, as food: “Take and eat…”

is in keeping with the practice of

Temple sacrifice, where the animal victim

was consumed.

Christ, as Shekinah, is radiant with meaning.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=588&letter=S

But Messiah, Who comes to save us from

Original Sin? [That’s where my "willing suspension

of disbelief" ends.]

Original Sin, as taught by Christianity, has no

basis in Judaism. [Here are links, for those who

have not followed this thread]:

aish.com/spirituality/growth/Human_Nature_Inherently_Good_or_Evil$_Ethics_of_the_Fathers_17.asp

jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq125.html
If human beings wish to accept the writings

of St. Paul…where the concept first appears…

later fleshed out by Augustine…that is

theirs to choose, and I do respect their choice.

For me, I’ll abide with Israel.

Best wishes, :tiphat:

reen12*

 

[Matt16_18]

Reen12:

Original Sin, as taught by Christianity, has no basis in Judaism. … If human beings wish to accept the writings of St. Paul…where the concept first appears…

This is silliness. If you would bother to read Paul, you would see that ALL his arguments about the progeny of Adam suffering from the effects of Adam’s sin are based on what is written in Genesis.

Please give me one quote from Paul concerning “original sin” that is not a perfectly coherent understanding of Genesis!

 

[Aaron_I]

reen12:

For me, I’ll abide with Israel.

Then realize that you will abide without Christ. And on what grounds? The fact that the Jews didn’t have a doctrine on original sin. How is that significant? The Jews never had doctrine on eternal life (something the pharisees and sadducees fought over), but that doesn’t make the Christian claim of eternal life any less valid.

As Matt16_18 said, Paul derives original sin from Genesis. It is not contradictory to Scripture. I fail to see how this is a problem.

 

[Breton]

reen12:

Christ, as Shekinah, is radiant with meaning.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=588&letter=Sreen12

“Shekinah” is very interesting. I would not have known about this had our discussion ended. Thanks.

So to summarize, to what do we conform our conscience? The truth as presented by the Catholic Church? Reen says no because she finds the Catholic doctrine of original sin unacceptable (possibly among other Catholic truths). So we are really dealing with original sin? I’ll go with a “yes”.

I need to actually earn a living today but will try to spend some time tonight brushing up on original sin. Again, because of this dialogue, I get to brush up on things which is a definite good.

But before I go to work, let me comment on this provided by reen12:

Original Sin, as taught by Christianity, has no
basis in Judaism. [Here are links, for those who
have not followed this thread]:

aish.com/spirituality/gr…_Fathers_17.asp

The article referenced starts:

*"Is the human being inherently good or evil? This is one of the classic debates in the history of philosophy and religion.

The non-Jewish concept of Original Sin, for instance, assumes the latter, i.e. a person is destined for hell, unless s/he does something to alter that course, because the first man’s sin made human nature inherently sinful.

The Torah is centered on the idea that the human being is endowed with a deposit of divinity and made in “God’s image.” This doesn’t contradict Genesis 6:5, for instance, which says, “And God saw the great evil of man in the world, and that the entire impulse of the thoughts of his heart were evil all day.” First, the verse doesn’t say that the “heart” itself was evil, but only the “impulse of the thoughts” of the human heart. In other words, side-by-side with this natural spirituality (i.e. the “heart” fashioned in the “Divine Image”) is an impulse for evil."*

I don’t see that Catholicism is inconsistent with the above statement given what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states here:

*1718
The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it:

We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated.

How is it, then, that I seek you, Lord? Since in seeking you, my God, I seek a happy life, let me seek you so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you.

God alone satisfies.

1719
The Beatitudes reveal the goal of human existence, the ultimate end of human acts: God calls us to his own beatitude. This vocation is addressed to each individual personally, but also to the Church as a whole, the new people made up of those who have accepted the promise and live from it in faith.*

I am concerned though when the author states “but only the ‘impulse of the thoughts’ of the human heart”. The author really wants to limit the evil impulses of the heart by using the qualifier “but only” as well as leaving out the word “entire”. That word – entire – is all-inclusive. This omission allows the author to now conclude “This impulse may be very strong…” when in fact, the “impulse” is entire – all-encompassing – no “may be” about it.

The author then brings “entirety” back to the discussion – now that it suits his/her purpose – by stating “…but not enough to supplant and entirely eclipse the original state in which the human being was created, namely “in the Divine Image.”

I agree with the author that “Ultimately, an impulse can be repulsed; an inherently evil nature cannot.” But I do not see where the author has proven Catholicism teaches man is inherently evil, only “that the entire impulse of the thoughts of his heart were evil all day” and, I would conclude, still are.

Certainly some strands of Christianity do teach the total depravity of man – whatever that means. However, I think you and I are contrasting Catholicism and Judaism.

Anyway, I will keep digging (and finish the article referenced above). Thank you for the reference material.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Reen12,

I cannot accept a religion which in its 4000 year existence, has been in exile from it’s Scriptural Temple worship for the last 2000 years. That’s HALF of it’s history!!!. The longest previous exile was in OT times, the Babylonian exile, where God punished the people of Israel for their sins by allowing their Temple to be destroyed and by keeping them from practicing Temple worship in accord with the Divine precepts of Sacred Scritpure. That lasted only 40 years, if I’m not mistaken.

Whatever happened before AD 70 must have really made God unhappy to have resulted in a 2000 years exile … and counting!! Something as serious as rejecting God’s own Son, the Messiah, would probably have done it.

If Judaism ever hopes to end this exile, they need to accept the Messiah they rejected in the first century. Some rabbis don’t want their Holy Temple back, because that would create a problem for them. What excuse would they have for not following the Hebrew Scriptures and practicing animal sacrifice again? As is now exists, Judaism cannot be practiced in accord with the Word of God, because God has destroyed their OT Temple.

When God teaches his people a lesson, at least in OT times, he removed the Ark of the Covenant from their possession and/or destroyed their Temple, such that they 1) no longer possess the stone tablets of God’s Word, and 2) No longer can worship in God’s Holy Place. Both of these conditions exist right now within Judaism, and I believe it is because of God’s providence, just as it had been in OT times.

As for Jewish understanding of Original Sin, Jews differ on the topic. Observe,

From the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the article “Sin”:

Original Sin.
Man is responsible for sin because he is endowed with free will (“beḥirah”); yet he is by nature frail, and the tendency of the mind is to evil: “For the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. viii. 21; Yoma 20a; Sanh. 105a). Therefore God in His mercy allowed man to repent and be forgiven. Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of this so-called “original sin”; some teach that it was due to Adam’s yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of mankind.

You may disagree with the minority of Jewish theologians, but that doesn’t mean that original sin is a foreign concept to Judaism.

As for your proposition that perfect contrition cannot have an admixture of lesser motives, this proposition was condemened by the Church in the late 1600s. Also, contritio is called “sorrow of the justified,” whereas *attritio *is “sorrow of the non-justified.” Thus, justification (ie. “state of grace”) is alway immediate for those who posses the gift of contritio. When I have my textsbooks handy, I will cite the source. It appears to me that you are building a “barrier” to Catholicism which the Catholic Church does not maintain.

I for one don’t believe that a perfect contrition cannot include admixture of lesser motives, so long as one’s own intentions are subordinate to God’s intentions. I know for certain that a “state of grace” is immediate for those given the gift of contritio. This is what I’ve been taught, and what I teach in CCD. When have you known me to misrepresent Catholic teaching?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Reen12,

According to Catholic Answers:

"There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: contrition and attrition, which are also called and imperfect contrition, respectively. Perfect contrition is sorrow for sins based on charity or supernatural love of God. Imperfect contrition is sorrow for sin based on anything else, such as being scared of going to hell. (We recognize both kinds in the act of contrition after confession: “I detest all my sins because I fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell [imperfect contrition] but most of all because they offend thee, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love [perfect contrition].”

Both kinds of contrition, which are not mutually exclusive, assume the resolve to sin no more."

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302qq.asp

“***Perfect and imperfect contrition are not mutually exclusive. A person can have both at the same time.” ***

---

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0001qq.asp

Hmmmm…seems I’m not the only one to understand contrition in this way, your interpretation of Catholic teaching notwithstanding.

 

[Breton]

Matt16_18:

This is silliness.

This is uncharitable.

 

[reen12]

Hello, Aron I,

quote: Aron i

The Jews never had doctrine on eternal life (something the pharisees and sadducees fought over), but that doesn’t make the Christian claim of eternal life any less valid.

Description of Olam Haba:

jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Thanks for your thought,

reen12

 

[reen12]

Hello, Breton,

I glanced quickly, at your post, because I have
several errands to accomplish today, and am
pressed for time.

In terms of:
quote: Breton

I agree with the author that “Ultimately, an impulse can be repulsed; an inherently evil nature cannot.” But I do not see where the author has proven Catholicism teaches man is inherently evil, only “that the entire impulse of the thoughts of his heart were evil all day” and, I would conclude, still are.

I noted, further up the thread, that the links I provide,
are provided to demonstrate Judaism’s view on a
particular theological topic…and not for their view on
what Christianity believes e.g. some Christian reformers
taught that man was “totally depraved.” Catholicism,
of course, does not.]

I’ll re-read your post, later today.

Best,

reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

Matt, instead of just saying “You’re wrong, it’s a mis-interpretation of Scripture on your part”, please help me correctly interpret this. Aren’t the “sons of your own people” the Hebrews, those under the Mosaic Covenant.

“You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:18).

But who, really, are the “sons of your own people”? Paul explains in his Letter to the Romans that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants … it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants."(Romans 9:25 & 7-8)

The children of the flesh are those who are Jews merely because of their genes. Paul contrasts the children of the flesh with the children of the promise. The children of the promise are those who will see the fruits of the covenants that God made with Adam (and Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and …). The faithful remnant among those Jews who are children of the flesh are, of course, counted among the children of the promise. (Mary, Johanna, Salome, Martha, the Apostles, etc. )

Paul is only teaching what Jesus taught. Jesus makes it clear who is to be included as “neighbor” with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Obviously Jesus was well aware of the passage of Leviticus that you keep quoting since he quotes it himself. And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”
Luke 10:25-27But the lawyer that presents this question to Jesus immediately tries to justify himself by asking who his neighbor is. He has the same interpretation of Leviticus 19:18 that you keep giving, that “neighbor” is to be interpreted to mean only those who are children of the flesh. Jesus disabuses the lawyer of this interpretation of Leviticus with the parable of the Good Samaritan. But he [the lawyer], desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. … Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” [The lawyer]said, “The one who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” The “sons of your own people” are those who have mercy in their hearts, not those with hearts of stone can trace their genetic bloodlines to Abraham.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

As to limbo, here’s what the Baltimore Cathechism #3

had to say about it.

See question #632

searchgodsword.org/his/ad/cac/cat/baltimorecm.html

I wonder how that would be “nuanced” in B.C. #4 ?

Hmmmmm…

reen12

Actually the Baltimore Catechism is a local catechism which derives from Catholic doctrine. It contains an admixture of theology (free opinion) and doctrine (sententia certa). “Limbo” of infants does not appear in any magisterial texts that I know of. You can see more with regard to our discussion of limbus infantum here:

Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

What the magisterium has formally taught on the matter can be found here: #33

Infants can certainly be sanctified extra-sacramentally by God (eg. Mary, John the Baptist), so one does not have to conclude that infants who die without sacramental baptism (ex opere operato) absolutely do not recieve sanctifying grace through prayer (ex opere operantis) or some other extra-sacramental means. See more here: #45 and here #46 .

 

[reen12]

Hi, itsjustdave,

You know, I think that I’m not conveying what my
real objection is, to the Baltimore Catechism,
clearly. Since I cannot just copy out what it
says, I have to provide links, which is more
cumbersome.

Would you address this question for me, Dave, please?

• how do you view the responsibility, of the compilers
  of a catechism - thru which millions of Boomers were
  “educated” in the faith - when those compilers actually
  stated in BC # 3, that an unbaptized infant *cannot *go to
  heaven? Regardless of what the Church actually
  teaches, setting aside the Limbo business…that
  Catechism taught the word “cannot.”

see #632
searchgodsword.org/his/ad/cac/cat/baltimorecm.html

Additionally, I thank you for providing the following:

quote: itsjustdave

Infants can certainly be sanctified extra-sacramentally by God (eg. Mary, John the Baptist), so one does not have to conclude that infants who die without sacramental baptism (ex opere operato) absolutely do not recieve sanctifying grace through prayer (ex opere operantis) or some other extra-sacramental means.

And, one final thing. I was trained, in both philosophy
and theology, in college, 40 years ago. [my degree is
in philosophy]. I realized, while I was typing this, that I
have given Aquinas a hard time, on these forums, and
that there is a certain lack of gratitude, on my part, in
doing this. Why? Because I have already had the benefit
of his thought…though, certainly, you have a much deeper
and broader knowledge of same.

In short, in some of the discussions I get involved in, on
various websites, I’m drawing on Aquinas, and yet
giving him a hard time, while I’m doing so.

If I read aright, what Benedict XVI is saying, he is
calling for a greater emphasis on biblical imagery,
in the passing on of the faith, and a less prominent
place for Scholastic Theology, in evangelization and
catechesis. And I guess that’s what I’ve been trying
to argue…clumsily at times…that the image of the
Good Shepherd “speaks” to heart and soul, and that
the Church needs to speak in biblical terms…and not in
biblical realities “translated” into Scholastic terminology.

Do you understand what I’m saying here, and, if so,
what is your thought? For there will always be a need for
Scholastic theology, within the Church…in the training
of her clergy, especially, I think.

Thanks for the effort that you have put into your posts,
on this thread, Dave. I, for one, appreciate same.

Best,

Maureen

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

I cannot accept a religion which in its 4000 year existence, has been in exile from it’s Scriptural Temple worship for the last 2000 years. That’s HALF of it’s history!!!. The longest previous exile was in OT times, the Babylonian exile, where God punished the people of Israel for their sins by allowing their Temple to be destroyed and by keeping them from practicing Temple worship in accord with the Divine precepts of Sacred Scritpure. That lasted only 40 years, if I’m not mistaken.

jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm

:tiphat:

quote: itsjustdave

You may disagree with the minority of Jewish theologians, but that doesn’t mean that original sin is a foreign concept to Judaism.

Appealing to the view of a few, as to what Judaism
holds, falls oddly on my ears, as a former Catholic.
In the faith/works debate, I should give credence
to the views of the “few”? [aka Reformers].

As in?
Just because the Roman Catholic Church
holds that sacramental confession is required-
there a some “few”] Christians, who hold that
that is not the case. [the good ol’ argument
from *the position of a “few” !]

So, the idea that confession is not required, is not a “foreign concept” to Christians.

BTW, I hope that you’ll address:
quote: reen12

• how do you view the responsibility, of the compilers
  of a catechism - thru which millions of Boomers were
  “educated” in the faith - when those compilers actually
  stated in BC # 3, that an unbaptized infant *cannot *go to
  heaven? Regardless of what the Church actually
  teaches, setting aside the Limbo business…that
  Catechism taught the word “cannot.”

see #632
searchgodsword.org/his/a…altimorecm.html

Again, the presentation of the “few”?
That’s not* really* what the Church teaches?
That’s a logical defense, in terms of BC #3?

Best,

reen12

 

[smelton]

NotWorthy:

I think our freedom of conscience ends as soon as we make a decision to the following question: Do I love Jesus and wish to obey his words? If so, then all I want to do is to please Him. I know that He left me a Church. I know that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write the New Testament (and, of course, the Old Testament). I know that he instructed His Church to guide and teach me.

So how do I know that something is right or wrong, and it’s not apparently obvious, i.e. stem cell research? I look to the Church to guide me.

Notworthy

I think I’m starting to see the difference between Catholisism and protestantism. A protestant would look to the bible for the guiding principles to life. A Catholic would look to the church. From a protestants point of view this would seem crazy because we don’t believe the church to be infallable. I really appreciate our prior converstions because it has shown me the differences. I’m sure the similarities are there as well. I would say that the bible teaches the principle of life, pro-life, anti-death penalty, anti-stem cell research due to the use of unborn babies. You would say the same but for a different reason. Correct? I don’t mean this as an attack but a true question.

 

[Breton]

Reen12,

It appears to me that you find the Catholic doctrine of original sin unacceptable mostly because, if true, original sin requires man to do ‘something’ (baptism) in order to achieve internal life. You seem specifically troubled by unbaptized infants whose fate upon death the Church chooses not to define but hopes and prays for God’s mercy. You find this incompatible with a loving God as represented by Judaism. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just wanting to summarize what I have read. Please let me know if I’m wrong on this specific topic.

To give me an idea of what Judaism believes about the concept of original sin, you provided me this link:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Human_Nature_Inherently_Good_or_Evil$_Ethics_of_the_Fathers_17.asp

As I stated in a prior post, this article did not start out well for me. When I returned to read the whole article, I found it had little to offer past the first few lines with which I was in disagreement with. The author states:

Is the human being inherently good or evil? This is one of the classic debates in the history of philosophy and religion.

The non-Jewish concept of Original Sin, for instance, assumes the latter, i.e. a person is destined for hell, unless s/he does something to alter that course, because the first man’s sin made human nature inherently sinful.

By contrast, the Talmud teaches: “All Israel have a portion in the World to Come,” i.e. a person is destined for the place of True Reward – unless he or she does something to lose it.

I cannot reconcile this author’s view (which I presume is Jewish) with Judaism’s teaching on Brit Milah as seen below.

jewfaq.org/birth.htm

Judaism 101: Birth and the First Month of Life

Brit Milah: Circumcision
A person who is uncircumcised suffers the penalty of kareit, spiritual excision; in other words, regardless of how good a Jew he is in all other ways, a man has no place in the World to Come if he is uncircumcised.

Certain sins are punished by the sinner being “cut off from his people.” See, for example, Gen. 17:14 and Ex. 31:14. This punishment is referred to as kareit (kah-REHYT) (literally, “cutting off,” but usually translated as “spiritual excision”), and it means that the soul loses its portion in the World to Come.

Please help; I can not reconcile these two apparent Jewish teachings.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12,

Unlike Judaism, which is not one Church having one binding hierarchical authority, Catholicism is one Church with one binding hierarchical authority.

So, in Judaism, the views of a “school” of rabbis can and does become the teachings of Judaism. In Catholicism, the views of the theologians, even a majority of theologians does not become the doctrines of the Catholic Church unless and until they are asserted as such by the authentic magisterium.

Your comparison is apples and oranges since Judaism doesn’t have a single governing authority which can declared it’s teachings universally binding upon all Jews.

The analogy is like the U.S. Air Force members who may differ individually with regard to what they think U.S. Air Force doctrine ought to be. The opinion of members of the USAF doesn’t make it USAF doctrine, does it? US Air Force Doctrine comes solely from the USAF Doctrine Center, reporting to the AF Chief of Staff. Doctrine comes from the top, through the chain of command to USAF members. Whether we agree with the doctrine or not, our opinion can only have an affect on USAF doctrine if those in proper authority formally and officially approve our views as doctrine and promulgate it as such.

Our “doctrine center” for Catholicism is the Holy See, who reports to the Roman Pontiff. Judaism (nor Protestantism) does nto have an equivalent authoritative construct, so any wacky rabbi (or Protestant pastor) can teach anything he likes and package it as Judaism (or Protestantism). A cursory study of these religions makes this rather clear. Unity of purpose suffers without unity of command. This applies to the military as well as the Church Militant.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

Would you address this question for me, Dave, please?

• how do you view the responsibility, of the compilers
  of a catechism - thru which millions of Boomers were
  “educated” in the faith - when those compilers actually
  stated in BC # 3, that an unbaptized infant *cannot *go to
  heaven? Regardless of what the Church actually
  teaches, setting aside the Limbo business…that
  Catechism taught the word “cannot.”

see #632
searchgodsword.org/his/ad/cac/cat/baltimorecm.html

According to BC #632:

Question 632:
Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
Answer:
Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

If one understands baptism to include both sacramental and extra-sacramental baptism, then the above is true. One must be born again to go to heaven, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally.

However, it is clear that the author of Baltimore Catechism held to the Thomist theology which many other Catholic theologians held, which asserts that infants who die without sacramental baptism cannot be extra-sacramentally baptized. I disagree with this view, which appears to be speculative theology rather than binding universal doctrine. If only St. Thomas consulted with me on the matter, things would’ve been different.

Sometimes my pastor teaches things that are not correct too. Not everyone in authority is a good catechist. Yet, I believe the Baltimore Catechism is a very good Catechism. I think it should have been more clear as to what “commonly belief” means. Sententia communis falls within “free opinion” and is not universally binding upon all Catholics as sententia certa is.

As I’ve shown on another thread, even before Trent Cardinal Cajetan asserted a vicarious baptism of desire for infants of Christians. Thus, the Baltimore Catechism teaches a mixture of theology and doctrine, not strictly what is held universally binding as sententia certa by the magisterium.

As for their responsibility? We stand on the shoulders of giants, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, et. al. It is only because of the doctrinal development of our forefathers that we can go further than them in answering difficult theological questions.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Breton,

A great post! Thank you.:tiphat:
You make an excellent point, on kareit.

I’m going to check with a Judaic source, on
when* kareit* applies…within a week of birth?
within a month? What about the case of a
uncircumcised male infant…is it a case, parallel
to, the “unbaptized infant.” ?

I’ll get back to you, on this, soonest.

---

I can’t stress sufficiently, that I, too, have
read material, on websites, that does not
*distinguish *between Catholic doctrine and
the doctrine of some of the Reformation
Churches. [e.g.the non-Catholic doctrine
of the “total depravity” of human beings,
in terms of Original Sin.]

Still, I find it helpful, in reading these essays,
to find out what Judaism holds, say, with regard
to the “nature of man”…that is, Judaism does not
hold that human beings are “born in sin.” *

As I say, I’ll get back, as soon as I find additional
information on when *kareit *applies, with regard
to the time of birth.

Best,

reen12*

 

[reen12]

Well, I’m workin’ on it. Spent 40 minutes,

Googling same, and have posed the question

on a Judaic website.

One thing I have learned. The circumcision is to

take place on the 8th day, after birth, so that

the child has been present in the world through

one Sabbath., if I understand same correctly.

reen12