Rosemary Benefield vs. St. Thomas Aquinas?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

great you all are wonderful with your statements and quotes…You are so elegant at making your point…I am amazed at the intelligence and the gift of writing out your points…But you know what …THe Mercy of our Lord is far more broader then your understanding of the laws…Thank you God …Lets all pray that woman who have been reading this who feel terrible and lost dont go into a complete depression and spiral downward…unless you have walked the walk of losing a child to still born or been a repentent woman from abortion.lets remember Romans 8:28 I say to these woman…Forget all these arguments…You know your child is with the Lord…You can feel him or her…You cant explain it but you know…“we walk by faith not by sight”
…let the phrasees…argue in court…but you know what you know…and no one can take that from you…Your child is waiting for you…

At the risk of being called a “heartless heartless person” let me give my thoughts for your consideration.

Firstly, I don’t see any point in telling a women that her aborted baby is in heaven, since that is contrary to what the Church teaches, unless, of course, abortion is now the 8th sacrament. A child who dies without baptism does not go to heaven.

Secondly, have you considered the damage you could cause by telling people that abortion sends their baby to heaven? What if a very poor women who lived in the ghetto became pregnant. All of her other children were either in gangs or on drugs. And what if the women thought to herself “I do not want to bring another person into this cruel world only to loose their soul. Therefore, I will abort the baby and send him to heaven to be withe Jesus”. I can guarantee that such “reasoning” is not out of the question, and in fact has probably contributed to some abortions.

Let me tell you how I would handle a women who has had abortions, since there may indeed be some reading this.

First of all, I would explain that everyone has done things they wish they wouldn’t have. Their having an abortion was indeed very bad, but since the world that we live in does all it can to make people think that abortion is simply a “medical procedure”, what they did is somewhat understandable. I would explain that God is extremely merciful and want more than anything to forgive them for this sin.

Now, I would in no way make them believe that abortion is the 8th sacrament. On the contrary, I would let them know that aborted babies die without baptism, and as such are not saved. However, I would explain to them, God can do all things. It is certainly possible that He could perform a miracle in which he could use extra-sacramental means to infuse grace into the soul of the child at the last minute. This is certainly possible for God, but also certainly not the norm.

I would then explain that God is outside of time, and can apply our prayers to those of the past and future. I would then tell the story of Padre Pio who was asked who he was praying for at a particular time. Padre Pio answered that he was praying that his father - that he would have a happy death. The person responded by saying “your father has been dead for years”, to which the Saint replied “yes, but God is outside of time and can apply these prayers to the time of my father’s death”.

I would then explain to the mother that there is still something she can do for her child. She can pray every day that God will perform a miracle by which the child received the state of grace through extra-sacramental means known to God alone.

Whenever the mother began to feel guilty for what she has done, she should use this as an opportunity to remmeber to pray for her child. This would bring her closer to God and reduce the possibility that she would fall into despare, since she actually has something that she can do. We fall into despare when we feel as thought there is nothing we can do and the situation is hopeless. This would give the women something to do, and would give her hope.

I would then explain that if she is faitful to this prayer for her child, and perseveres, she can have great confidence that God will answer the prayer.

In my opinion, this will be the best way to handle it. Any temptations to depare would be met with prayer - prayer for her child. Thus, each time she feels guilty will be a time that she is drawn closer to God through prayer.

There is no reason to lie to them in order to make them “feel” better. If we want to make them feel better, why not tell them that abortion is not so bad? Obviously no one would do that.

Therefore, don’t lie or mislead the person, instead give them a positive way to respond to this situation - that is, to pray that God will perform a miracle by which the child receives the state of grace through extra sacramental means.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

At the risk of being called a “heartless heartless person” let me give my thoughts for your consideration.

Firstly, I don’t see any point in telling a women that her aborted baby is in heaven, since that is contrary to what the Church teaches, unless, of course, abortion is now the 8th sacrament. A child who dies without baptism does not go to heaven.

Secondly, have you considered the damage you could cause by telling people that abortion sends their baby to heaven? What if a very poor women who lived in the ghetto became pregnant. All of her other children were either in gangs or on drugs. And what if the women thought to herself “I do not want to bring another person into this cruel world only to loose their soul. Therefore, I will abort the baby and send him to heaven to be withe Jesus”. I can guarantee that such “reasoning” is not out of the question, and in fact has probably contributed to some abortions.

Let me tell you how I would handle a women who has had abortions, since there may indeed be some reading this.

First of all, I would explain that everyone has done things they wish they wouldn’t have. Their having an abortion was indeed very bad, but since the world that we live in does all it can to make people think that abortion is simply a “medical procedure”, what they did is somewhat understandable. I would explain that God is extremely merciful and wants, more than anything, to forgive them for this sin. All that they need to do is go to confession. (If they are not Catholic, that would give me a chance to draw them toward the Church).

Now, I would in no way make them believe that abortion is the 8th sacrament, and that their baby is now in heaven. On the contrary, I would let them know that aborted babies die without baptism, and as such are not saved. However, I would explain to them that God can do all things. It is certainly possible that He could perform a miracle in which he could use extra-sacramental means to infuse grace into the soul of the child at the last minute. This is certainly possible for God, but not the norm.

I would then explain that God is outside of time, and can apply our prayers to either the past and future. I would then tell the story of Padre Pio who was asked who he was praying for at a particular time. Padre Pio answered that he was praying that his father - that he would have a happy death. The person responded by saying “your father has been dead for years”, to which the Saint replied “yes, but God is outside of time and can apply these prayers to the time of my father’s death”.

I would then explain to the mother that there is still something she can do for her child. She can pray every day that God will perform a miracle by which the child received the state of grace through extra-sacramental means known to God alone.

Whenever the mother began to feel guilty for what she has done, she should use this as an opportunity to remmeber to pray for her child. This would bring her closer to God and reduce the possibility that she would fall into despare, since she actually has something that she can do. We fall into despare when we feel as thought there is nothing we can do and the situation is hopeless. This would give the women something to do, and would give her hope.

I would then explain that if she is faitful to this prayer for her child, and perseveres, she can have great confidence that God will answer the prayer.

In my opinion, this will be the best way to handle it. Any temptations to depare would be met with prayer - prayer for her child. Thus, each time she feels guilty will be a time that she is drawn closer to God through prayer.

There is no reason to lie to them in order to make them “feel” better. If we want to make them feel better, why not tell them that abortion is not so bad? Obviously no one would do that.

Therefore, don’t lie or mislead the person, instead give them a positive way to respond to this situation - that is, to pray that God will perform a miracle by which the child receives the state of grace through extra sacramental means.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The last post had some typos that it wouldn’t allow me to correct. This is the same post at the previous one with the typos corrected.

At the risk of being called a “heartless heartless person” let me give my thoughts for your consideration.

Firstly, I don’t see any point in telling a women that her aborted baby is in heaven, since that is contrary to what the Church teaches, unless, of course, abortion is now the 8th sacrament. A child who dies without baptism does not go to heaven.

Secondly, have you considered the damage you could cause by telling people that abortion sends their baby to heaven? What if a very poor women who lived in the ghetto became pregnant. All of her other children were either in gangs or on drugs. And what if the women thought to herself “I do not want to bring another person into this cruel world only to loose their soul. Therefore, I will abort the baby and send him to heaven to be withe Jesus”. I can guarantee that such “reasoning” is not out of the question, and in fact has probably contributed to some abortions.

Let me tell you how I would handle a women who has had abortions, since there may indeed be some reading this.

First of all, I would explain that everyone has done things they wish they wouldn’t have. Their having an abortion was indeed very bad, but since the world that we live in does all it can to make people think that abortion is simply a “medical procedure”, what they did is somewhat understandable. I would explain that God is extremely merciful and wants more than anything to forgive them for this sin, if they will just confess it.

Now, I would in no way make them believe that abortion is the 8th sacrament. On the contrary, I would let them know that aborted babies die without baptism, and as such are not saved. However, I would explain to them that God can do all things. It is certainly possible that He could perform a miracle in which he could use extra-sacramental means to infuse grace into the soul of the child at the last minute. This is certainly possible for God, but not the norm.

I would then explain that God is outside of time, and can apply our prayers to the past or the future (since it is all the present to God). I would then tell the story of Padre Pio who was asked who he was praying for at a particular time. Padre Pio answered that he was praying that his father - that he would have a happy death. The person responded by saying “your father has been dead for years”, to which the Saint replied “yes, but God is outside of time and can apply these prayers to the time of my father’s death”.

I would then explain to the mother that there is still something she can do for her child. She can pray every day that God will perform a miracle by which the child received the state of grace through extra-sacramental means known to God alone at the last moment.

Whenever the mother began to feel guilty for what she has done, ishe should use this as an opportunity to remmeber to pray for her child. This would bring her closer to God and reduce the possibility that she would fall into despare, since she actually has something that she can do. We fall into despare when we feel as thought there is nothing we can do and the situation is hopeless. This would give the women something to do, and would give her hope.

I would then explain that if she is faithful to this prayer for her child, and perseveres in it, she can have great confidence that God will answer the prayer.

In my opinion, this will be the best way to handle it. Any temptations to despare would be met with prayer - prayer for her child. Thus, each time she feels guilty will be a time that she is drawn closer to God through prayer.

There is no reason to mislead to them in order to make them “feel” better. If we want to make them feel better, why not tell them that abortion is not so bad? Obviously no one would do that.

Therefore, don’t lie or mislead the person, instead give them a positive way to respond to this situation - that is, to pray that God will perform a miracle by which the child receives the state of grace through extra sacramental means.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Dogmatic Council of Florence (1438-1445): “…the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denzinger 693)

This was also taugth by Pope John XXII.

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches that the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only Original Sin descend immediately into Hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denz. 493a)

What should be underlined here is;

“with different penalties and in different places”

All mysteries are not revealed to us. Though there was a waiting place for Abraham and Moses that they and others was redeemed from so too there is a place for those who innocently die in the state of unbaptism.

To insinuate otherwise out of context is to misunderstand the Mercy of God and in fact insult God.

Now, the location in “hell”, where those who die in original sin go is a place of natural happiness, not a place of physical torments. This location of hell, which has no physical punishment, but only the “pain of loss” (the loss of the beatific vision) has traditionally been called “Limbo”.

Speculation and not dogma that has been revealed.

In the next quote, Pope St. Innocent discussed infants specifically:

Pope St. Innocent: “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish”.

The following are a few more quotes:

Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how griveously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require…”

**St. Augustine (415 AD) **“Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ.” (Augustine, Epistle 167 – AD 415)

AUGUSTINE: “If you wish to be Catholic, do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants who are overtaken by death before they can be baptized are able to come to a forgiveness of original sins (3) (Augustine, “The Soul and Its Origin, A.D. 419-420)

Do you realize that the use of these quotes out of context without reference to historical time frame or source seems irresponsible?
Compassion should be paramount and overtake the need to make a point to prove ones case.

The Church has defined de fide that those who die in original sin only go to hell, but are only punished with the “pain of loss”. The only way there would be a difference between infants in the womb and those that have been born is if the child was created in the State of grace, and then lost the state of grace immediately upon exiting the birth conal, which is clearly not the case.

It is not de fide because the mystery is in tack and the Holy Spirit has yet to reveal dogmatically what “limbo” is or even where the Bossom of Abraham is.

On the other hand the dogma of the purification of purgatory available to even the most hardened sinner and the doctrine of the baptism of desire which puts the power of the sacrament in the hands of anyone is revealed and will always stand against any bigotted condemnation of an innocent.

Here’s another mystery for you. How did the thief on the cross who we must presume was unbaptised able to enter the kingdom of Heaven with the Father the same day as Christ?

Luk 23:42 And he said to Jesus, Lord, remember me when You come in Your kingdom.

Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with Me in Paradise.

Mar 10:14 But seeing, Jesus was indignant. And He said to them, Allow the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them. For of such is the kingdom of God.

Mar 10:15 Truly I say to you, Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child may not enter into it, never.

Luk 8:10 And He said, To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables, that seeing they might not see, and hearing, they might not understand. Isa. 6:9

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here.

 

[yinekka]

PC, to whom does the Audio Christo site belong and what are the names of the priests giving the homilies?

]The Church knows of know way for unbaptized infants to obtain the state of grace

79 It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. …What we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation, as must now be explained.

I have to say that I think that the correct quote from the document *the Church does not have sure knowledge *about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die conveys a different meaning to your take.

magisterial quote after magisterial quote that clearly states that unbaptized babies -including specificaly those who have been aborted - are not saved.

When you give the quotes could you cite precisely what document they come from and where in the document, that will enable me to read the quote in context and make an informed comments. Where in the Council of Trent documents did your quote come from, I couldn’t find it.

Since I have not been able to find a de fide statement about the fate of unbaptised preborns or infants I can only presume there isn’t one

Re the Protocol Letter Suprema Haec Sacra (122/49) from the Holy Office (1949):
“This was a letter from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggini to the Archbishop of Boston regarding Fr Feeney. I don’t think it qualifies as a magisterial document.

While it is correct to say that “Those who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God” De Fide, Ludwig Ott in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *25, goes on to say The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner . Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism such as prayer and desire of the parents or the church or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that they dying child can decide for or against God in the moment of death, so that they dying child can decide for or against God or suffering and death of the child as quasiSacrament are indeed possible but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

The above would seem to accord with the official Latin version of paragraph 99 of Evangelium Vitae (1985), the Catechism para 1216 (1994) and The Hope Of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised 101 and 102. (2007) I think that Rachels Alumni is quite correct to say that the Church has not definitively determined the fate of aborted or miscarried preborns or infants who die without baptism.

I agree with your final sentence that we must not go beyond what the Church says.

 

[yinekka]

This really belongs as a tail end to my earlier post but I don’t know how to edit.

According to the revelations made to Venerable Mary of Agreda, containded her her book, The Mystical City of God, which has been highly praised and recommended by numerous Popes

Which popes have highly praised and recommended The Mystical City of God and can you link to this information.

A final point God is not bound by His sacraments- He can do anything He wishes -we are.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

PC, to whom does the Audio Christo site belong and what are the names of the priests giving the homilies?

I think it is the Fraternity of St. Peter.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Which popes have highly praised and recommended The Mystical City of God and can you link to this information.

I don’t know about a link, but they are mentioned in the Introduction of the book. This is a sample of what it says…

Introduction: “The first Pope officially to take notice of The City of God was Pope Innocent XI, who, in July 3, 1686, in response to a series of virulent attacks and machinations of some member of the Sorbornne, known to be Jansenists, issued a breve permitting the publication and reading of The City of God. Similarly, decress were afterward issued by Pope Alexander VIII, Clement IX and Benedict XIII… The great Pope Benedict XIII. when he was archbishop of Benevent, used these revelations as material for a series of sermons on the Blessed Virgin. On Sept 26, 1713, the bishop of Ceneda, Italy, objecting to the publication of The City of God, was peremptorily ordered by the Holy Office to withdraw his objections as interfering with the decree of Pope Innocent XI…”

That is the first paragraph of the introduction.

A final point God is not bound by His sacraments- He can do anything He wishes -we are.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas:

Dogmatic Council of Florence (1438-1445): “…the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denzinger 693)

This was also taugth by Pope John XXII.

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches that the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only Original Sin descend immediately into Hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denz. 493a)

Joab Anias:

What should be underlined here is;

Quote: “with different penalties and in different places”

All mysteries are not revealed to us. Though there was a waiting place for Abraham and Moses that they and others was redeemed from so too there is a place for those who innocently die in the state of unbaptism. To insinuate otherwise out of context is to misunderstand the Mercy of God and in fact insult God.

This is not what the Church teaches. It might be what you would like for the Church to teach; but it is not what the Church teaches. There are no second chances after death.

Do you see what has happened to you? You now consider the teaching of the Church to be contrary to the mercy of God. Man is born into this world separated from God, and dead to supernatural life. That is why we must be born again. Baptism is the means for being born again.

The Church teaches that those who die in original sin only go to hell. They are not punished with the punishment of the damned, but they are in hell nevertheless.

The souls who died before the time of our Lord, and who were saved, were contained in Limbo because the gates of heaven had not yet been opened. They were not given a “second chance” after death. They were saved when they died, but could not enter heaven until the redemption was accomplished. Thus they were contained in Limbo for the time being.
Joab Anias:

Do you realize that the use of these quotes out of context without reference to historical time frame or source seems irresponsible?

There was nothing out of context about the quotes, and the historical time frame does not effect the truth. The truth is what it is and it doesn’t change.

Compassion should be paramount and overtake the need to make a point to prove ones case.

That is the problem. You have a disordered compassion. You consider it “paramount”, in which you place it above the truth. Your “compassion” has resulted in your not believing what the Church teaches. That is a disordered compassion.

What if someone claimed that those who said abortion was evil were lacking compassion for the women who had the abortion? Would you then set aside what the Church teaches about the sinfulness of abortion (or seek to twist it) in order to make them “feel” better? That is precisely what you are doing with what the Church teaches with regard to those who die in original sin only: you are rejecting it out of a misguided “compassion”.

On the other hand the dogma of the purification of purgatory available to even the most hardened sinner and the doctrine of the baptism of desire which puts the power of the sacrament in the hands of anyone is revealed and will always stand against any bigotted condemnation of an innocent.

Interesting: Someone who believes what the Church teaches about those who die in original sin only is considered "bigotted? If having the courage to believe what the Church teaches make me a bogot, then I am guilty.

And purgatory is not a place for hardened sinners. It is a place for those who die in the state of grace, but who need to be cleansed. Hardened sinners are not in the state of grace.

Here’s another mystery for you. How did the thief on the cross who we must presume was unbaptised able to enter the kingdom of Heaven with the Father the same day as Christ?

Firstly, he didn’t go to heaven that day. Jesus Himself did not ascend to heaven for three days. The “Paradise” that he met Jesus in “that day” was Limbo.

Now to address you question: I don’t deny baptism of desire, but the theif on the cross was living during the time of the Old Testament, and as such would not have needed baptism as Original sin was removed by circumcision. The old law ceased at Pentecost, at which time baptism was necessary.

Don’t allow your misguided compassion to cause you to reject what the Church teaches. Abortion is murder and not the 8th sacrament.

The Church knows of absolultely no way for a child who is not baptized to obtain the state of grace. We can speculate on how it might be possible, but this is mere speculation and not based on what the Church actually teaches.

I’m sure you would prefer that I reject what the Church teaches out of “compassion”, but I realize the deadly error in that line of reasoning.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

When you give the quotes could you cite precisely what document they come from and where in the document, that will enable me to read the quote in context and make an informed comments. Where in the Council of Trent documents did your quote come from, I couldn’t find it.

It came from the Catechism of the council of Trent. If you “copy and paste” a portion of any quote into google, it should pull up the document the quote is contained in.

Some of my other quotes came from Denzingers Sources of Catholic Dogma, a very well known book of Catholic doctrinal teaching (from councils and Popes) from the earliest years up to 1950.

I am not sure if Denzingers is available online.

Since I have not been able to find a de fide statement about the fate of unbaptised preborns or infants I can only presume there isn’t one

The statement that would apply is the one from the council of Florence. It is an infallible quote. It doesn’t mention infants specificaly, but it does mention those who die on original sin only. That would include infants, children below the age of reason, and seriously retarded people. Here is the quote again from the Council of Florence, and a similar quote by Pope John XXII:

Dogmatic Council of Florence (1438-1445): “…the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denzinger 693)

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches that the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only Original Sin descend immediately into Hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denz. 493a)

yinekka:

While it is correct to say that “Those who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God” De Fide, Ludwig Ott in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *25, goes on to say The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner . Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism such as prayer and desire of the parents or the church or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that they dying child can decide for or against God in the moment of death, so that they dying child can decide for or against God or suffering and death of the child as quasiSacrament are indeed possible but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

The above would seem to accord with the official Latin version of paragraph 99 of Evangelium Vitae (1985), the Catechism para 1216 (1994) and The Hope Of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised 101 and 102. (2007) I think that Rachels Alumni is quite correct to say that the Church has not definitively determined the fate of aborted or miscarried preborns or infants who die without baptism.

I agree with your final sentence that we must not go beyond what the Church says.

The quote from Fundamental of Catholic Dogma is exactly what I said in the post from yesterday (which was, for some reason deleted). I fully acknowledge that God can do all things, and that it may be possible for those who die unbaptized below the age of reason to obtain the state of grace.

I don’t know if you read that deleted post, but I said that I would encourage a mother who aborted her baby to pray every day that God (who is outside of time and can apply our prayers to anyone at anytime in history) would grant the child the use of reason by which it could desire baptism and thus be saved.

I personally believe that it is likely that God would grant this request if the mother persevered in it until the end.

But no one is going to do that if they believe the child is in heaven. Therefore, those who mislead these women through a misguided “compassion” may be doing much more harm than they realize.

We should never depart from the truth through a misguided compassion. Let the truth guide and direct all that we do and say; and let our feelings and emotions be subordinate to what the Church teaches. If we invert the order, eventually our feelings and emotions will cause us to reject and distort what the Church teaches so that it is in accord with our “feelings”, while those who hold fast to the truth will be considered, “heartless, heatless” … “bigots”.

 

[Joab_Anias]

This is not what the Church teaches. It might be what you would like for the Church to teach; but it is not what the Church teaches. There are no second chances after death.

What the Church teaches is what the CCC says. That we should have Hope.

Do you see what has happened to you? You now consider the teaching of the Church to be contrary to the mercy of God. Man is born into this world separated from God, and dead to supernatural life. That is why we must be born again. Baptism is the means for being born again.

It’s impossible for the Church to be contrary to the Mercy of God. Baptism is entirely necessary.

The Church teaches that those who die in original sin only go to hell. They are not punished with the punishment of the damned, but they are in hell nevertheless.

That is NOT what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that it does not know.

The souls who died before the time of our Lord, and who were saved, were contained in Limbo because the gates of heaven had not yet been opened. They were not given a “second chance” after death. They were saved when they died, but could not enter heaven until the redemption was accomplished. Thus they were contained in Limbo for the time being.

So you admit they were saved without baptism. The Church has not taught Limbo is a definite place. It teaches that it is a mystery.

There was nothing out of context about the quotes, and the historical time frame does not affect the truth. The truth is what it is and it doesn’t change.

They were out of context as they were written in apologetic defense of the need for Baptism, NOT in condemnation of innocents. I refer you to current Church teaching in that regard. In Augustine’s day only one confession was allowed, the result was that baptism was put off so that one may be washed of their sins twice in their lives. This was also a mistake. As the necessity of baptism became better understood, confession was allowed more often so that baptism wasn’t delayed. This makes your quotes out of context again due to historical reference which also disregards more recent and fuller understanding of Christ’s complete revelation.

continued;

 

[Joab_Anias]

That is the problem. You have a disordered compassion. You consider it “paramount”, in which you place it above the truth. Your “compassion” has resulted in your not believing what the Church teaches. That is a disordered compassion.

My compassion is hardly disordered, in fact it is ordered by prayer to the Holy Spirit, and the virtues of Faith, HOPE and Love. I believe everything the Church teaches and the fullness of its understanding. I am not hung up on the 5th century but comprehend the evolution of understanding to the present day.

What if someone claimed that those who said abortion was evil were lacking compassion for the women who had the abortion?

Where has anyone made an argument FOR abortion?

Would you then set aside what the Church teaches about the sinfulness of abortion (or seek to twist it) in order to make them “feel” better? That is precisely what you are doing with what the Church teaches with regard to those who die in original sin only: you are rejecting it out of a misguided “compassion”.

I have twisted nothing and my opinion is in line with the CCC. Its not about making them feel better its about salvation of innocents. You argue that innocents are condemned as if that is somehow just.

Interesting: Someone who believes what the Church teaches about those who die in original sin only is considered "bigotted? If having the courage to believe what the Church teaches make me a bogot, then I am guilty.

Bigotry is the mistaken belief that only oneself can be correct. It is the result of inordinate pride. I feel you have misunderstood the barbarism of the middle ages to be conducive to where the Church is presently. It is NOT.

And purgatory is not a place for hardened sinners. It is a place for those who die in the state of grace, but who need to be cleansed. Hardened sinners are not in the state of grace.

On the contrary, I am a hardened sinner struggling with a hard heart yet through the mercy of God and His Church which He left to guide me I AM in a state of Grace as I have no mortal sin on my soul. If I were to meet my demise today I would merit purgatory through that same mercy of God. Justification is merited by repentance, humility is the pathway to sanctification. My church teaches that if honestly pursued to the best of my ability the attainment of sanctification is NOT a requirement to know Gods mercy.

Firstly, he didn’t go to heaven that day. Jesus Himself did not ascend to heaven for three days. The “Paradise” that he met Jesus in “that day” was Limbo.

So in your opinion both Heaven and Limbo are paradise? Where does the Church teach this? In fact where does the Church teach limbo as a dogma? In any event you agree that an un-baptized thief didn’t know hell fire because of his repentance but argue that innocents by no fault of their own do? This makes no sense to me.

Now to address you question: I don’t deny baptism of desire, but the thief on the cross was living during the time of the Old Testament, and as such would not have needed baptism as Original sin was removed by circumcision. The old law ceased at Pentecost, at which time baptism was necessary.

Don’t allow your misguided compassion to cause you to reject what the Church teaches. Abortion is murder and not the 8th sacrament.

I would never think of rejecting what the Church teaches. Abrtion is an abomination. My compassion isn’t misguided. I think you lack it.

The Church knows of absolultely no way for a child who is not baptized to obtain the state of grace. We can speculate on how it might be possible, but this is mere speculation and not based on what the Church actually teaches.

The Church does NOT teach there is abosolutely no way. It teaches that it currently knows of no way. Neither does it teach we should speculate on their fate but that we SHOULD trust in the Mercy of God and maintain Hope. A Hope that your argument seems to attempt to negate.

I’m sure you would prefer that I reject what the Church teaches out of “compassion”, but I realize the deadly error in that line of reasoning.

Well if your sure that I would prefer you reject what the Church teaches you would be misguided yet again. What I wish is that you would get it right and consider what your doing and who your hurting with such inflamitory statements and by making great Saints seem to be contrary to recent understandings of the possible fate of innocents.

continued;

 

[Joab_Anias]

.

I’ve known protestants to use half truths such as bending Trent against Vatican II. You as a Catholic should know better because you’re causing confusion and discrediting Augustine by quoting an incomplete picture or frankly get back to the books so you know what your talking about instead of making these tongue in cheek statements to women who are already suffering. Maybe look up the meaning of the word compassion in Fr.Hardons apologetics dictionary;

COMPASSION
Pity at another person’s sorrow or misfortune, with the desire to alleviate or, on occasion, even to suffer in the other’s stead.

This is where my compassion lays my brother and I fail to see how your tact even comes close to it.

My final prayer for you is that you let the Church speak for herself as to what she teaches or at least be open to the possibility that your interpretation may be leaning toward the harsh side for your own souls sake.

Blood and Water which gushed forth from the side of Jesus as a fount of Mercy for us, I trust in you!

Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the most powerful intercession of your well beloved spouse.

Peace and Gods blessings upon you and yours and all the broken spirits and victims of abortion - female, male and innocents.

I am not saying the innocents are admitted directly to heaven, yet it seems you are saying they never are. The Church teaches that we do not know that for sure and that Hope is to be held to.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas:

Do you see what has happened to you? You now consider the teaching of the Church to be contrary to the mercy of God. Man is born into this world separated from God, and dead to supernatural life. That is why we must be born again. Baptism is the means for being born again.

Joab:

It’s impossible for the Church to be contrary to the Mercy of God. Baptism is entirely necessary.

Did you mean to say that baptism is entirely necessary? Or entirely unecessary? Only the later fits in with your position, but it is directly contrary to a defined dogma:

Council of Trent: “If anyone says that baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation; let him be anathema” (Canon V)
Pax et Caritas:

The Church teaches that those who die in original sin only go to hell. They are not punished with the punishment of the damned, but they are in hell nevertheless.

Joab:

That is NOT what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that it does not know.

Dogmatic Council of Florence (1438-1445): “…the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denzinger 693)
Pax et Caritas:

That is the problem. You have a disordered compassion. You consider it “paramount”, in which you place it above the truth. Your “compassion” has resulted in your not believing what the Church teaches. That is a disordered compassion.

Joab:

My compassion is hardly disordered, in fact it is ordered… I believe everything the Church teaches and the fullness of its understanding. I am not hung up on the 5th century but comprehend the evolution of understanding to the present day.

“Evolution of understanding” is condemned by the Church.

Oath Against Modernism: Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers **in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. **I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

First Vatican Council:“For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

Doctrines can develope, but the doctrine remains exactly the same. For example Christians have always believed that the Eucharist is the true body of Christ, but at the 4th Lateran Council transubstantiation was defined so that we now have a clearer understanding of the same teaching. We now know that the substance changes, but the “accidents” (what appears) remains. It is the exact same doctrine, just more clearly understood.

“Evolution of understanding” is one of the tricks used by the modernists to undermine the truth, and destroy doctrine. The following was written by Pope Pius X in his encyclical against the errors of the modernists…

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominic Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the doctrine of the Modernists: ”To the laws of evolution everything is subject – dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death. The enunciation of this principle will not astonish anybody who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects.”(128)

What the Catholic Church teaches does not change at all.

I’ll have to respond to the rest when I have some time.

For now, why don’t you provide the infallible quotes that says aborted babies go to heaven. The only quote you will be able to produce is a non-infallible quote from Evangelium Vitae which was removed from the final version since it was contrary to what the Church teaches. In other words, the quote comes from a draft of the document, not the final and definitive document.

 

[cothrige]

Having just stumbled onto this thread, and read through over it, I am struck by something which seems (and by seems I mean that I haven’t read though I may have missed in such a lengthy discussion) to have been overlooked. More than once I have noticed that some women who have had abortions in the past have posted regarding how what some have said here in this discussion may affect them adversely. And, while I am sympathetic to the pain, isn’t that what sin of this magnitude is likely to cause for us? Can we hope never to have to consider that our actions may affect others in very profound ways, or that the effects may even outlive us?

I also wonder if we can carry such sympathy on to everyone? What about other forms of homicide? Say there is a man who kills his wife. She is not an innocent child and so has much less to speak for her, and is likely to have sin on her conscience. Did he deprive her of an opportunity to repent? It would seem likely, and therefore may have contributed directly to her eternal fate. Should we declare, however, that such is not the case just so he feels more comforted? Why? For what gain?

Another example is the non-believing or disobedient parent. What if I teach my children atheism and later repent, but find that all of my children maintain disbelief and die in that state? Did I contribute, or even directly cause that? Did I therefore cost my children their salvation? It would seem so. And isn’t that part of the pain I have to live with? Shouldn’t I have considered that before I did what I did? Surely it would not be suggested that we begin speaking of all who die as atheists as “living with God” just to comfort the repentent sinners? How is that either just or sensible?

Our actions can directly affect the souls of those around us, and most of all the little children we bring into the world. If we kill our children, or teach them hatred of God, we bear a grave sin on our soul. But, God can forgive that sin and we must trust to God on that. And we can pray for the souls of those we have harmed, and we can even hope that they found God in the end in spite of our actions. But, if we allow sympathy for the former sinner to cloud our language we do nothing for the victims, who are in God’s hands in any case, and we could contribute greatly to the future indulgence in sin. If we are going to speak against such sins, in hopes of urging others to avoid them, then we simply cannot ignore the possible eternal effects they may have. If we should choose to do so then instead of helping people we may be contributing to such future choices in favour of sin ourselves, and by doing so bear that on our own consciences as well.

For all of those who are living with the deaths of their children on their consciences I will certainly say a prayer this evening, as I will for the victims as well. I would ask that you would consider saying a prayer for this sinner as well.

Patrick

 

[Joab_Anias]

Did you mean to say that baptism is entirely necessary?

Exactly what it says; that it is necessary. Though in Christ’s kingdom there are always exceptions for God as He saves who He wills to. Imo He wills to save us all and we only have to cooperate with and accept His abundant grace to get there. This would beg the question what then would He require of an innocent since they meet misfortune before they get the opportunity. Wouldn’t God casting them to hell fire be as discarding as the abortion itself? This would be contrary to Gods nature don’t you think?

“Evolution of understanding” is condemned by the Church.
Oath Against Modernism: Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

As well you should condemn these things you mention as do I. I feel you misunderstood me.

I however am not talking about developing Dogma which is impossible or Modernism. I am talking about currently less than full understandings of Christ’s complete revelation. Many Dogmas took centuries to formulate. Never did or does the Church contradict itself in this final process. Maybe a better word should have been fulfill rather than evolve as that didn’t get the point across properly. Just as Christ fulfilled the old covenant the Church fulfills our finite understandings of what is brought to a clearer light by the Holy Spirit. In the sense I speak, lets use limbo for example, the Church has yet to make a dogmatic declaration in respect to the fate of innocents. We are still being made to understand it through the work of the Holy Spirit. The revelation of Christ may be complete but our and the Churches final understanding of it is NOT and as the apostle says the world isn’t large enough to contain all the books that it would take to record all that Christ has done. Simply put, the work of the Holy Spirit through the Church isn’t finished. We have 16 dogmas at present. There surely are more to come and certain things may be left a mystery for all of Earthly time such as when Christ will return or who is greatest in heaven for another example.

Doctrines can develope, but the doctrine remains exactly the same. For example Christians have always believed that the Eucharist is the true body of Christ, but at the 4th Lateran Council transubstantiation was defined so that we now have a clearer understanding of the same teaching. We now know that the substance changes, but the “accidents” (what appears) remains. It is the exact same doctrine, just more clearly understood.

Great example; exactly what I wished to portrait in regard to the Church teaching as to the fate of the innocents. We have great statements from Augustine on the necessity of baptism, original sin and binding examples of charity from various popes since then that relate. Most recently is the encyclical statement from JPII and the CCC that says we should maintain HOPE that in no way contradict the previous statements of their time but instead shed more light on the subject. We mustn’t jump ahead of the Church or make conclusions due to past records on what the Church herself hasn’t concluded. I realize and see from your subsequent statements that you are not doing this however this is a tender issue for many repentant and broken hearted victims to this abomination of abortion that is condemned as early as the Didache and it’s our responsibility to be as compassionate and tender to their wounds as possible when discussing it in an open forum by doing our best to NOT pour salt into those wounds. This was the callousness that I wished to address, not the facts. I have them. We should be encouraging hope and avoiding despair to build up the body of Christ in a truly universal Spirit of reconciliation.

What the Catholic Church teaches does not change at all.

But that is untrue in one regard. What she declares dogmatically cannot be reversed I agree of course but many other doctrines have changed in the past as understanding grew through the protection of the Holy Spirit toward the fullness of the truth… They have changed because they have come to be better understood by the Magisterium and many eventually became dogma in a much different form than when they were first proposed.

Continued;

 

[Joab_Anias]

For now, why don’t you provide the infallible quotes that says aborted babies go to heaven.

Why are you asking for a negative? Let us not schism for any reason what-so-ever. Again I will try to be clear as I do not refute anything the Church says and do my best to understand both ultra traditional thinking and progressive mysticism. My and many other practical Catholics points here have been that there is no infallible quote that says aborted or otherwise unfortunate children prior to the age of reason or invincible and even vincible ignorant persons who by no fault of there own who have not received baptism have no hope of attaining to the beatific vision. In fact the Church suggests there is HOPE- though has yet to issue a definitive answer to this aside from relative issues like the baptism of desire that would justify the most atrocious sinner given he was disposed to true contrition and some other Vatican II things I have read. Since an unborn has done nothing to be sorry for must he first experience natural sin to attain forgiveness? I think we would agree that would be nonsensical. Then we are left with reconciling the teaching of the Church about the revelation of Christ. Perhaps the misunderstanding has been using baptism ultra dogmatically as a new circumcision all along when the stain of original sin was actually lifted by Christ’s sacrifice symbolized when the curtain in the holy of holies was rend in two. I believe Vatican II addressed this with justice.

The IX Dogma of the Church on Baptism says;
1.Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
2.The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
3.Baptism confers the grace of justification.
4.Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.
5.Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.
6.Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.
7.Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.
8.Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.
9.The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.

Though I know this to be true and can never be abrogated it’s my opinion that an unborn soul naturally desires the beatific vision because Adam certainly did still do so after the fall (though ashamed) as do those in a state of grace in pursuit of holiness and because of this; in line with the letter of the Church teaching and law is possibly more than enough to gain purgatory or a similar place to purify the soul of original sin as it would yet to be plagued by any concupiscence which might constitute a baptism of desire.

Of course, it’s a mystery, and now I am only speculating and though I will not get ahead of the Church further than my opinion I do have great confidence and hope in the Mercy, Love and Justice of God to value the soul of the unborn as much as the sinner. Perhaps the Cross of the new covenant is all it takes for an innocent or they are baptized in the womb by angels. We just don’t know yet and we may not know for some time to come (or not in this life at all) as the relationship between the dogma for baptism and Gods infinite mercy for the innocent is fully reconciled by the Church.

Peace and blessings.

 

[yinekka]

I

would encourage a mother who aborted her baby to pray every day that God (who is outside of time and can apply our prayers to anyone at anytime in history) would grant the child the use of reason by which it could desire baptism and thus be saved.

I personally believe that it is likely that God would grant this request if the mother persevered in it until the end.

But no one is going to do that if they believe the child is in heaven. Therefore, those who mislead these women through a misguided “compassion” may be doing much more harm than they realize.]

PC I think that this is a very good point.

I have also read recently that one of the reasons the Divine Innocence Movement was not viewed favourably by Rome is that the central message that De Menezes claims to have received since 1984, namely that *the Church proclaim the martyrdom of all the innocent children deliberately killed before birth and acknowledge these unborn children as companion martyrs of the first Holy Innocents, is doctrinally problematic. De Menezes’ notion of a ‘Baptism of Love’ is not, as claimed, a development of doctrine. Rather it is an innovation which is difficult to harmonize with the teaching of the Church. *

PC, if you obtained that quote from Trent surely you know how to locate it. It is not up to me to find your sources for you.

As for the quotes from the encyclicals, not everything written in an encyclical is infallible. There has to be a certain formulation e.g. the teaching has to be addressed to the universal Church and has to be couched in language - *I define *or *I authoritatively say * or *this is to be believed with divine and Catholic Faith *- which leaves one in no doubt that something is being defined. As for the teachings of the ordinary magisterium being infallible these teachings have to confirm what has always and everywhere been understood. St Augustine was speculating as many theologians have, about the fate of infants who die without baptism; his speculations are not infallible. The fate of unbaptised infants has not been defined authoritatively either by the pope or by the ordinary magisterium. If I am wrong here can you show me where it has been defined either by the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium.

By the way, you still haven’t told me about those homilies.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

Did you mean to say that baptism is entirely necessary?

Exactly what it says; that it is necessary. Though in Christ’s kingdom there are always exceptions for God as He saves who He wills to. Imo He wills to save us all and we only have to cooperate with and accept His abundant grace to get there. This would beg the question what then would He require of an innocent since they meet misfortune before they get the opportunity. Wouldn’t God casting them to hell fire be as discarding as the abortion itself? This would be contrary to Gods nature don’t you think?

Yes, I think it would since they would be punished for not doing anything wrong. This would be unjust, and hence contrary to the nature of God. HOWEVER, that is not what the Church teaches. It does not teach that they go to hell fire.

It teaches that they go to a place of natural happiness (paradise), with only the pain of loss. “Pain of loss” means they do not possess the beatifiv Vision, which raises the next question…

Is it unjust for God to deprive the innocent of the Beatific Vision? Answer: No. It would only be unjust if man had a right to heaven, which he does not. Like sanctifying grace, Heaven is a pure gift, and man has no right to us. It is actually a condemned error to claim that man has a right to heaven.
Boaz:

But that is untrue in one regard. What she declares dogmatically cannot be reversed I agree of course but many other doctrines have changed in the past as understanding grew through the protection of the Holy Spirit toward the fullness of the truth… They have changed because they have come to be better understood by the Magisterium and many eventually became dogma in a much different form than when they were first proposed.

What Church doctrines have changed? Your previous example, where you claimed that the early Church only allowed confession one time, and that it taught that baptism should be delayed, was not Church doctrine. There were people in the early years, such as Tertullian, who believed that Baptism should be delayed, and that a person who fell into mortal sin could not be forgiven, but these were individuals who had gone too far. They deviated from the truth, but it was not Church teaching.

Please provide an example of Church doctrine changing. Not discipline, which does change, but doctrine.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Why are you asking for a negative?

That’s not a negative; it’s a positive. A negative is what I am being ask for. How many times have I been asked for an infallible statement that aborted babies go to hell? That is a negative.

The reason I asked you for an infallible statement to support your position is because I have been asked for infallible statements to support mine. I provided numerous magesterial quotes to support my position. These would be considered infallible by virtue of the fact that they are part of the ordinary and universal magisterium. They are not novel, but part of tradition which has been explicitly taught by the Magisterium. These are considered infallible.

If the quotes I provided were new, they would not be considered infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium, but they are not new.

My and many other practical Catholics points here have been that there is no infallible quote that says aborted or otherwise unfortunate children prior to the age of reason or invincible and even vincible ignorant persons who by no fault of there own who have not received baptism have no hope of attaining to the beatific vision. In fact the Church suggests there is HOPE

The Church has said we are allowed to hope, which I have not disagreed with. It basically comes down to this. To obtain the state of grace, a child below the age of reason must be baptised, since they do not have the ability to desire baptism. God, however, can do all things including performing miracles. It is, therefore, possible that God could perform a miracle by which the child received the state of grace, somehow. But God rarely performs miracles, and it would be a mistake to presume that He will.

In addition, the danger is that overemphasizing the “possibilities” can result in people explicitly rejecting what the Church teaches - such as, that those who die in original sin only go to hell (Council of Florence).
Boaz:

Perhaps the misunderstanding has been using baptism ultra dogmatically as a new circumcision all along when the stain of original sin was actually lifted by Christ’s sacrifice symbolized when the curtain in the holy of holies was rend in two. I believe Vatican II addressed this with justice.

If I understood you right, that is a very serious error. It is something that is being taught by heretical theologians today, or at least hinted at, but is totally false and absolutely contrary to the teachings of the council of Trent, and 2000 years of Catholicism.

It sounded like you said that Church was mistaken in placing so much emphasis (being “dogmatic”) on baptism removing original sin, when, in fact, original sin may have been removed when Christ died on the cross. In other words, Christ’s death on the cross removed original sin from the world, which would make baptism merely a symbolic act that incorporated people into the body of the Church (which is taught by some heretics today). They would be members of the soul of the Church (the mystical body of Christ) from birth (since Christ removed original sin on the cross), but would become members of the body of the Church, through baptism.

That is a very, very serious error. In fact, it is to serious that I am hesitant to argue with you over it because I don’t want you to become hardened in it. I am just going to point you to the council of Trent’s teaching on original sin, which you can easily access online. You should read what the Council taught and allow it to form your understanding. Anything to the contrary should be absolutely rejected in your mind. And remember, as you wrote above, when a council defines something it is fixed and settled.

There are a lot of errors today, and many of them are in the area of original sin. It is extemely easy for us to digest these errors without realizing it. The antidote is the teachings of the council of Trent.