M
marci
Guest
The catechism (as pointed out in an earlier post) tells us that we CAN hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. (CCC 1261)
- Status
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Yes, and the Catechism is fallible, while the two Ecumenical Councils I quoted above are infallible. Did you not read my first post where I brought up the “problem” with this Catechism and Limbo? Citing it in this thread is not going to anything for me.
A
Arnobius
Guest
I don’t think it unreasonable to assume the Church had the same information we did and were led to this conclusion in formulating the Catechism.
When we make ourselves the judges of the magisterium, we run into the risk of no longer being subject to the Church but demanding it submit to us.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Where did I judge the Magisterium?
A
Arnobius
Guest
Actually I don’t believe I ever said you did.
But nonetheless I believe we do need to be careful about judging when a Church teaching does or does not “conflict” because the error might be ours.
F
francesco920
Guest
I’d just like to add something to my last post which I just thought of:
(I repeat again that the following is just a thought for the sake of argument. I’m committed to remaining totally open minded to the question of whether limbo is dogma or not for the time being.)
Has any council or authoritative document ever said that there are only three forms of baptism (water, blood, and desire) and that there are no more? Is it possible to say that there are no more? If so, how, and why can this not be a mystery as to whether or not there are more that are known only to God? It seems to me that saying that it is a mystery does not weaken the dogma of the necessity of baptism because since baptism is the only way of removing Original Sin that God has revealed, one would be insane to say “well, I’ll take the gamble and hope that there is some other way.” Who in their right minds would gamble with eternal life? Who in their right minds would toss away assurance (in the case of babies and those who have not reached the age of reason) for a 50/50 chance?
(I repeat again that the following is just a thought for the sake of argument. I’m committed to remaining totally open minded to the question of whether limbo is dogma or not for the time being.)
Has any council or authoritative document ever said that there are only three forms of baptism (water, blood, and desire) and that there are no more? Is it possible to say that there are no more? If so, how, and why can this not be a mystery as to whether or not there are more that are known only to God? It seems to me that saying that it is a mystery does not weaken the dogma of the necessity of baptism because since baptism is the only way of removing Original Sin that God has revealed, one would be insane to say “well, I’ll take the gamble and hope that there is some other way.” Who in their right minds would gamble with eternal life? Who in their right minds would toss away assurance (in the case of babies and those who have not reached the age of reason) for a 50/50 chance?
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Doctrinal Development does not involve adding, changing, or evolving. The Early Church Fathers taught three Baptisms. St. Thomas taught three Baptisms, St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught three Baptisms, etc. The Church can’t just add in a fourth Baptism. This would be an addition. The Church doesn’t add to the Deposit of Faith. What is taught now, was taught in the beginning. Papal Infallibility, the Assumption, etc. might have been formally definied recently, but I can prove, as can the Church that these were believed by the early Church. The Church cannot prove that a fourth Baptism was ever believed in. No go.
F
francesco920
Guest
That wasn’t exactly my question, but perhaps I phrased it wrong. Let me try to rephrase it:
Is it at all possible to say that there might be other ways of baptism known only to God besides the three we believe in? That is, we know that there are three, but is it possible to say that we know definitively and must believe that there are NO more than three? I am just wondering whether the belief that “there are only three forms of baptism, no more. Period.” is in fact dogma and therefore saying that “we know of three ways and that’s all we can ever know, but whether there are more or not is a mystery” is heresy.
T
TNT
Guest
Interesting that the Baptism of Desire idea is promoted by USING the old catechisms, but when it comes to Limbo taught in the very same Catechisms as a matter of fact, they all get thrown out the window.
The answer is:
Anything the does not lead toward or favor, Universal Salvation Theology, is to be removed step-by-step as the laity become disposed to the idea by propaganda.
Think about how every move is toward USalv. unless it blows up in laity.
Aquinas is the Divine Doctor of the Traditional Catholic Faith, whereas,
Hans von Balthasar replaced him in the VAT II era.
T
TNT
Guest
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6*: “*Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - *Condemned *
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and masters of Oxford University…
This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; **or says *that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: ***let him be anathema.” **
Does that help
A
Arnobius
Guest
Of course, and we all know how many Balthasarist theologians there are out there.I assume that you are referring to his work Dare We Hope All Men May Be Saved. However he does not say Universal Salvation will happen, but points out the Church does not teach any specific person is in hell,
I continue to find it ironic how people presume the magisterium errs, but never will consider the possibility of their own misunderstanding of what the Church intended. It is Fundamentalism, replacing their literalist approach to scripture with a literalist sense of Church Documents.
It is the authority of the Magisterium to ensure the proper teaching after all and not for each one of us to interpret on their own.
T
TNT
Guest
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic…
But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: #2016.)
St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ* truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church*, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3)
But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: #2016.)
St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ* truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church*, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3)
F
francesco920
Guest
Not really, because all that seems to condemn is saying that people who believe that there is no salvation “for babies dying without sacramental baptism…are stupid and presumptuous.” The heretical proposition which is condemned holds as fact that unbaptized babies are saved and disparages those who hold a perfectly orthodox belief, as I understand it. However, I do not see that condemned proposition holding the view that goes something like this: “it is possible that God in His mercy provides another way of salvation that removes Original Sin from babies who have not been baptized before they die, and therefore Catholics may hope that unbaptized babies can be saved, but they cannot know. The only known way of removing Original Sin is baptism, but there might be other unknown means.” Where is this view, which is basically what the current catechism says, specifically and authoritatively condemned or contradicted? - that’s what I’m interested in.
A
Arnobius
Guest
And… you’ll notice the Church does not say they will, so there is no contradiction, except in the eyes of those people who are looking for “proof” of heresy to justify their own disobedience.
Augustine is indeed quite the important theologian for the Church, undeniably. But you will notice that he and Pope Innocent I were speaking about the Pelagians, who denied the nature of grace in entirety and claimed it was possible for men to get to heaven by their own actions, so the words on infant baptism must be taken in that understanding.
Since the Church recognizes original sin, again there is no contradiction.
Augustine is indeed quite the important theologian for the Church, undeniably. But you will notice that he and Pope Innocent I were speaking about the Pelagians, who denied the nature of grace in entirety and claimed it was possible for men to get to heaven by their own actions, so the words on infant baptism must be taken in that understanding.
Since the Church recognizes original sin, again there is no contradiction.
I
iamscifimike
Guest
Were his works condemmed in part or in whole? Many of his writings were blatantly anti Catholic and it seemed like he was writing to directly contradict catholic teaching.
Though I’ve never heard of baptism of mercy per se, could this concept be included within the realm of extrodinary means of salvation and are extrordinary means something that was addressed by these coucils?
“Spe Salvi”
T
TNT
Guest
Mysterium Paschale,
I assume that you are referring to his work Dare We Hope All Men May Be Saved. However he does not say Universal Salvation will happen, but points out the Church does not teach any specific person is in hell,
I continue to find it ironic how people presume the magisterium errs, but never will consider the possibility of their own misunderstanding of what the Church intended. It is Fundamentalism, replacing their literalist approach to scripture with a literalist sense of Church Documents.
It is the authority of the Magisterium to ensure the proper teaching after all and not for each one of us to interpret on their own.
Wherein he asserts that Christians are still able to hope that God’s plan of universal salvation (that all be saved - 1 Tim. 2:4) will be realized. Some who object to this idea criticize Balthasar for proclaiming that hell is empty. Some believe this contradicts the Book of Revelation and the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
Cardinal Ratzinger
At Balthasar’s funeral
“What the pope intended to express by this mark of distinction [elevation to the Cardinalate], and of honor, remains valid, no longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith.”
( Allen, John L. Jr. (November 28, 2003). “The Word From Rome”. National Catholic Reporter 3 (15).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
F
francesco920
Guest
Not really, because all that seems to condemn is saying that people who believe that there is no salvation “for babies dying without sacramental baptism…are stupid and presumptuous.” The heretical proposition which is condemned holds as fact that unbaptized babies are saved and disparages those who hold a perfectly orthodox belief, as I understand it. However, I do not see that condemned proposition holding the view that goes something like this: “it is possible that God in His mercy provides another way of salvation that removes Original Sin from babies who have not been baptized before they die, and therefore Catholics may hope that unbaptized babies can be saved, but they cannot know. The only known way of removing Original Sin is baptism, but there might be other unknown means.” Where is this view, which is basically what the current catechism says, specifically and authoritatively condemned or contradicted? - that’s what I’m interested in.
OK, this is more like it, but do you take this to mean that only baptism as in water baptism is the only means? Does this statement also rule out martyrdom and desire?
I still see in this statement no contradiction to the idea that (I’ll paraphrase what I said before “God could (COULD) decide to confer the grace of baptism by another means for unbaptized babies who are about to die and as far as we know He might (MIGHT) have decided to do that.”
, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3)
This I concede is clear on the issue, but, as much as I love St. Augustine, I am not sure whether to consider this authoritative since I have not yet seen a Council or Pope whose teachings either directly rebuked or contradict the view I paraphrased above and since two recent popes (JPII and BXVI) have indicated that it is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to believe that unbaptized babies might be saved.
T
TNT
Guest
Do infants even need baptism or are the protestants correct?
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger*, Principles of Catholic Theology*, 1982, p. 43: “**Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, **[age of reason voluntarily seeking membership] baptism loses its reason to be." (raison d’etre )
Could a Southern Baptist have said it any better?
In Universal Salvation Theology, COULD becomes WOULD.
It really does not matter if it’s COULD or WOULD, since there is no obstacle to being saved,
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger*, Principles of Catholic Theology*, 1982, p. 43: “**Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, **[age of reason voluntarily seeking membership] baptism loses its reason to be." (raison d’etre )
Could a Southern Baptist have said it any better?
In Universal Salvation Theology, COULD becomes WOULD.
It really does not matter if it’s COULD or WOULD, since there is no obstacle to being saved,
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
TNT,
Please tell me you didn’t get your quotes from here (you seem to be listing them in the same order as this site, with the same extracts, etc.)? The reputation of the site might cause some to question whether or not the essayist was taking things out of context.
For instance that quote from Pope Innocent I was written in a letter to the Council of Milevis, and the ellipses includes this text: “For unless they shall have eaten the Flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His Blood, they shall not have life in them.” If someone were so inclined they might use that part of the quote to prove that unless the infants are baptized AND receive communion they won’t have eternal life.
It would seem that the quotes do need some sort of interpretation though, because a few look like they contradict salvation for the holy innocents, or for unbaptized martyrs, don’t you think?
VC
Please tell me you didn’t get your quotes from here (you seem to be listing them in the same order as this site, with the same extracts, etc.)? The reputation of the site might cause some to question whether or not the essayist was taking things out of context.
For instance that quote from Pope Innocent I was written in a letter to the Council of Milevis, and the ellipses includes this text: “For unless they shall have eaten the Flesh of the Son of Man and shall have drunk His Blood, they shall not have life in them.” If someone were so inclined they might use that part of the quote to prove that unless the infants are baptized AND receive communion they won’t have eternal life.
It would seem that the quotes do need some sort of interpretation though, because a few look like they contradict salvation for the holy innocents, or for unbaptized martyrs, don’t you think?
VC
T
TNT
Guest
Were the holy innocents Pre- or Post the Sacrament of the New Testament?
Feel free to acquire any corrected quote that I have posted, using any reference document /site you choose. If anything I quote is not accurate, or isolated from honest context, I will concede immediately.
For example, is:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger*, Principles of Catholic Theology*, 1982, p. 43: “**Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, **[age of reason voluntarily seeking membership] baptism loses its reason to be." (raison d’etre )
removed from context, or would it be even clearer if more surrounding content was added?
Proceed.
BTW, if I disagree with any of your source sites, does that in and of itself negate the quote? Just curious.
And just so you know, I hold to Explicit BOD of Catecumens & BOB for the same as martyrs.
Feel free to acquire any corrected quote that I have posted, using any reference document /site you choose. If anything I quote is not accurate, or isolated from honest context, I will concede immediately.
For example, is:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger*, Principles of Catholic Theology*, 1982, p. 43: “**Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, **[age of reason voluntarily seeking membership] baptism loses its reason to be." (raison d’etre )
removed from context, or would it be even clearer if more surrounding content was added?
Proceed.
BTW, if I disagree with any of your source sites, does that in and of itself negate the quote? Just curious.
And just so you know, I hold to Explicit BOD of Catecumens & BOB for the same as martyrs.
- Status