Rosemary Benefield vs. St. Thomas Aquinas?

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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

In other words, what you are getting at it that man is born into this world justified, and in the state of grace. The “desire for the beatific vision” supplies for baptism of desire and as such justifies. That is what you are saying, right? Therefore, man is born part of the mystical body of Christ, which makes him a member of the soul of the Church. Therefore, baptism is merely a ceremony that makes him a member of the body of the Church.

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.

No offense, but there are numerous errors in your “opinion”. Not to mention it is not what the Church teaches.

There have been alot of men over the years who have rejected what the Church teaches in favor of their opinion. These men, such as Luther, Calvin, and others, left the Church and began to teach their “opinion” to others. They gained some converts and now we have over 30,000 different “opinions” (denominations).

I have said several times that thoughts such as those expressed in this discussion are dangerous because they can lead people to reject what the Church actually teaches. They place so much emphasis in “possibilities”, and “hopes” that, after a while, they begin to form a system of theology around them. Belief always seeks understanding. And when people begin to beliive certain things (such as that aborted babies are saved) they seek to understand how this can be. The purpose of theology is to give understanding to what we believe. That’s what theology is.

Since you believe that aborted babies are saved, you have developed a theology around it, that can explain it. The problem is that this theology is not what the Church teaches, and causes you to explicitly reject what the Church teaches.

I’ll end here with the teaching of the Church as expressed at the council of Florence:

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)

 

[yinekka]

Hi PC,

You have been unable to provide me with a de fide statement about the fate of unbaptised infants because there isn’t one.

You asked another poster

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

If you have read this thread you will know that that is exactly what many of us are saying. The Church can’t say for de fide that unbaptised infants or aborted or miscarried preborns can go to heaven but she hopes and trusts in God’s mercy. The Church can’t say de fide that the above unbaptised go to some other place; theologians have been speculating about this for hundreds of years.

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.”

Code of Canon Law provides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly evident”(CIC 749 § 3).

This quote from the Council of Florence is not an infallible statement. No teaching is being solemnly defined for the universal Church.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not an infallible document as the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an infallible document although it may contain information about infallible dogmas.

Let’s take a hypothetical here - if the remark from the Council was an infallible statement then it would appear as a de fide statement both in Denzinger and Ott and I know it doesn’t in Ott.

If it was an infallible statement the Church would not be able to gainsay it . Have you read the excerpt from the Catechism 1216 and the document The Hope For Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised101 and 102? And The Instruction on Infant Baptism put out by the Sacred Congretation For the Doctrine of the Faith As for children who die without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to God’s mercy, as she does in the funeral rite provided for them.[23]

Pope St. Innocent: “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish”.
Can you give me a source for this document? It would seem to me that the language used is a bit informal for an official document but once again nothing is being solemnly affirmed here.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Hi PC,

You have been unable to provide me with a de fide statement about the fate of unbaptised infants because there isn’t one.

Has the Church ever defined infallibly that life begins at conception, and the abortion is even a sin?

If it hasn’t defined this infallibly, would you say a Catholic is free to be in favor of abortion? If not, why?

 

[catharina]

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is an infallibly declared teaching. It’s no leap to say that all life begins at conception; it follows too that the taking of that life is sinful.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is an infallibly declared teaching. It’s no leap to say that all life begins at conception; it follows too that the taking of that life is sinful.

I agree that life begins at conception, but yinekka is arguing that we are only required to believe what has been defined de fide. I don’t think the Church has ever defined de fide that life begins at conception, or that abortion is even a venial sin. Therefore, based on the reasoning of one who only accepts what has been defined de fide, and not also what has always been the common teaching of the Church, there should be no problem with those who are in favor of abortion, since it has never been infallibly defined that abortion is wrong in the least.

 

[Nordar]

I agree that life begins at conception, but yinekka is arguing that we are only required to believe what has been defined de fide. I don’t think the Church has ever defined de fide that life begins at conception, or that abortion is even a venial sin. Therefore, based on the reasoning of one who only accepts what has been defined de fide, and not also what has always been the common teaching of the Church, there should be no problem with those who are in favor of abortion, since it has never been infallibly defined that abortion is wrong in the least.

1. YOU shall NOT murder - kill illegally.

Having read all the posts i would like to say, My daughter miscarried a baby. My DIL aborted a baby when my son and her where together before marriage. She has since reconciled with the Church, however I believe that I have two grandbabies resting in Our Lords loving arms. To anyone who has had an abortion or lost a baby to still born or misscarriage I am sorry about the unkind and uncompassionate responses of some on here. God’s mercy is infinite, he is all forgiving, trust in him that your babies are with him.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

1. YOU shall NOT murder - kill illegally.

I agree 100%. I agree that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder.

However, it has not been defined de fide; and according to some people who have posted in this thread, we are only required to believe those dogmas that have been infallibly defined. Therefore, I am asking them for a de fide definition from the Church.

What is contained in the Bible is infallibly true, but it is not a dogmatic definition. The Bible is only the remote rule of Faith. The proximate rule of faith are the dogmatic definitions of the Church.

 

[Nordar]

I agree 100%. I agree that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder.

However, it has not been defined de fide; and according to some people who have posted in this thread, we are only required to believe those dogmas that have been infallibly defined. Therefore, I am asking them for a de fide definition from the Church.

What is contained in the Bible is infallibly true, but it is not a dogmatic definition. The Bible is only the remote rule of Faith. The proximate rule of faith are the dogmatic definitions of the Church.

In order to prevent Catholics from deceiving themselves and arguing that the Church’s two thousand year condemnation of abortion is only an opinion and not a doctrinal teaching of the faith, Pope John Paul II formally defined the condemnation of abortion in Evangelium Vitae:

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors and in communion with the bishops . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

In order to prevent Catholics from deceiving themselves and arguing that the Church’s two thousand year condemnation of abortion is only an opinion and not a doctrinal teaching of the faith, Pope John Paul II formally defined the condemnation of abortion in Evangelium Vitae:

Good quote. Do you agree, then, that in order not to deceive themselves into arguing that the Church’s two thousand year old teaching that baptism is necessary for infants, since those who die in original sin only go to hell, should be believed by all? Or do you believe that this two thousand year old teaching, which was even taught by the infallible dogmatic council of Florence, is optional?

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

Recommended reading:

Has limbo been abolished?
How can I find peace after an abortion?

 

[Therese_Martin]

Note:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.