Salvation of Unbaptized

[gorman64]

LilyM:

Hardly an infallible statement of dogma for starters.

Dear LilyM:

Are you saying that you need only give your assent to Church dogmas?

Cardinal Manning, one of the key fathers at the Council in 1870, explains how misguided your personal interpretation is:

“In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition of his infallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority.” (From, “The Vatican Council and its Definitions”).

Here is the same authority, Cardinal Manning:

"This spirit began in Germany. It says: ‘I believe everything which the Church has defined. I believe all dogmas; everything which has been defined by a General Council.’ This sounds a large and generous profession of faith; but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith. Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied. The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day. But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year; an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition. When, therefore, men said they would only believe dogmas, and definitions by General Councils, they implied, without knowing it, that they would not believe in the infallibility of the Church. (From, “Four Great Evils of the Day”.)

And here is Pope Pius IX, adding to this defense of the ordinary magisterium:

Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter:

“But when we treat of **that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience **so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.”

LilyM:

Let’s look at the issue with a bit of commonsense. A child who, through no doing of their own, dies before the age of reason and without receiving baptism is irredeemably cut off from the Beatific Vision with no possible extrasacramental means of attaining same? When every single person over the age of reason in fact has that chance? You’d seriously believe that?

You are at odds here with Pope Pius XII, who was a great theologian himself and a Vicar of Christ. You are at odds with the council of Florence…you are at odds with Pope Innocent III.

Why should we distrust them and trust your “common sense”? Your opinion carries absolutely no weight at all.

Can you now begin to see the gravity of your above statement?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[LilyM]

What is this premise that not receiving the beatific vision is some punishment from God, a deprivation of something owed to anyone? To receive the beatific vision is a free supernatural gift, one that goes beyond our nature to comprehend. It is not owed to anyone. In Limbo, souls innocent of actual sin enjoy a completely fulfilling natural happiness. Imagine yourself the happiest you could ever be in this life, with no pain, no sorrow, no illness, no suffering of any kind. Does that some like some kind of unjust punishment? It’s more than possible, in my mind likely, that God simply spared those souls by allowing them to die in this state, for given the world we live in, most souls probably die and go to hell proper where they suffer for all eternity. These innocent ones are spared that horror.

Unjust? Not for me to say. Confusing as heck? Absolutely. And almost totally arbitrary too. Let’s get down to specific cases here.

Adam and Eve lose their original innocence and chance of the Beatific Vision in Eden, but assuming they didn’t sin afterwards, have the chance to regain it millennia after their own deaths, when Christ dies and descends to the abode of the righteous dead.

Saddam Hussein retains his Original Sin and loses his chance at the Beatific Vision because his parents didn’t have him baptised Christian, but had the chance for last-minute Perfect Contrition and Baptism of Desire and so could have regained it.

My own baby niece, since her parents determined a month ago to have her baptised (previously they were reluctant) now has the almost certainty that if she died tomorrow their desire to baptise her would suffice, whereas five weeks ago, before they had so decided, she would have been indisputably and iredeemably condemned to Limbo with no chance or hope of any kind given her through extrasacramental means?

No way no how can I slice that so that it makes any kind of sense.

And yes, limbo is a punishment and a deprivation - we are taught that the chief pain of hell is separation from God, which those in limbo surely experience just as fully as anyone else. From the Catechism:

****1035 **The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 **The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, **in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. **

So that is what you’re condemning these totally innocent babies to.

By the way, gorman, what makes Pius XII the great theologian’s private speech to a bunch of nurses isn’t any more authoritative than the current catechism of the Catholic Church? Which is described in the following terms by JP2 in Fidei Depositum:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.

And you also ignore the elsewhere-expressed opinions of JPII and Benedict XVI, whose theological minds can be pitted against Pius XII any day.

Short answer - nothing makes your sources more authoritative than mine. And the Council of Florence DID NOT define what it meant to be in unity with the Church. I remain unconvinced.

 

[MTD]

My own baby niece, since her parents determined a month ago to have her baptised (previously they were reluctant) now has the almost certainty that if she died tomorrow their desire to baptise her would suffice, whereas five weeks ago, before they had so decided, she would have been indisputably and iredeemably condemned to Limbo with no chance or hope of any kind given her?

Actually, Baptism of Desire is not satisfied when someone else supplies the desire; the person who is to be baptized must desire it. Take another look at that quote from the Catechism of St. Pius X.

And yes it’s a deprivation - isn’t the MAIN pain of hell the awareness of the loss of the Beatific Vision? That all those who are there DO know what they could have had and DO know their loss? …] It seems illogical to say that there is any part of hell whose residents are in blissful ignorance.

It’s rather unfortunate that you don’t think very highly of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is called the Common Doctor of the Church and whose Summa was placed beside the Holy Bible at the Council of Trent. Because he does have some words about how it is possible for them to have natural happiness despite deprivation of the Beatific Vision. But if you change your mind, it is in the Supplement, Appendix I, Q. 1 of the Summa.

I think what we need to remember in this discussion of the fate of unbaptized infants is that God’s justice and mercy are infinitely perfect. In fact, they are so perfect that, in a way, we do an injustice to them just trying to compare them to our concepts of mercy and justice. Let’s try to keep this at the forefront of our minds when we seek to understand His ways. And when we can’t understand, let’s just put our trust in Him, realizing that He knows best, and that it’s not proper to reduce Him to our conceptions of how we think things should be done.

This is taken from Summa of the Christian Life: Selected Texts from the Writings of Venerable Louis of Granada, translated and adapted by Fr. Jordan Aumann, OP, Vol. I, Chap. 3:

"In this life we have two types of knowledge concerning God: one affirmative and the other negative. Affirmative knowledge scans the perfections and beauty of the heavens, the earth, and all creatures and enables us to know how much more perfect and beautiful is the Creator who made them, for in Him all these things are contained in an infinitely eminent manner. We call this knowledge affirmative or positive because it affirms and confesses that all these perfections exist in God.

“Negative knowledge is that which presupposes the lowliness and finiteness of all our concepts and hence denies all perfections of God as conceived according to our mode of understanding. In other words, it states that God is not great or beautiful or wise or powerful in the way in which our minds conceive these perfections, because He is all these things in a much different manner which created intellects cannot comprehend. In this way we praise and glorify Him the more because we confess that His grandeur is infinite, immense, incomprehensible, and ineffable.”

…]

“Therefore, in order to know something of God as He is in Himself, we must leave behind all the creatures of heaven and earth and soar far beyond all that can be sensed, imagined, or humanly understood in order to arrive at that sustance which surpasses all sensation and understanding and infinitely surpasses all created things. It has neither figure nor quanitity nor quality nor any other accident; neither does it admit of composition or change; therefore it is not subject to division or diminution. It neither perceives by means of any corporeal sense nor is it perceived by any corporeal sense. It is not a soul nor any potency of the soul; neither is it a body or any form of the body. It cannot cease to be nor ever be more than it is because it is already the plenitude of being. It is not reason or intellect (at least, not in any way that we can understand), though it is another type of reason and intelligence and life. It is not great nor good nor wise nor powerful nor beautiful in the way that we would imagine becasue God is all these things, but in a very different manner.”

Maria

 

[LilyM]

Actually, Baptism of Desire is not satisfied when someone else supplies the desire; the person who is to be baptized must desire it. Take another look at that quote from the Catechism of St. Pius X.

Maria

Firstly - I reedited the post, please reread. The Catechism makes clear that the main pain of Hell is indeed the loss of God’s presence - more painful than being physically tortured for eternity. Limbo, involving the same loss of God’s presence, must also be painful to a large degree.

As for Thomas Aquinas - I respect him, but he was totally wrong on the Immaculate Conception, so he can easily be wrong on limbo too.

As for baptism by desire - whatever. Move the whole scenario forward to the actual baptism then. She’s getting baptised in the middle of next month. So May 10th - eternal damnation, May 20th - hunky dory. Still about as clear as mud.

 

[Potato1]

Hardly an infallible statement of dogma for starters.

Let’s look at the issue with a bit of commonsense. A child who, through no doing of their own, dies before the age of reason and without receiving baptism is irredeemably cut off from the Beatific Vision with no possible extrasacramental means of attaining same? When every single person over the age of reason in fact has that chance? You’d seriously believe that?

The life of every child’s* body* is so precious to God that anything that smacks of artificial contraception or lack of openness to its creation is a grave and usually mortal sin. But as for the state of the child’s eternal *soul *- He cares so little for it that for a mere accident of the timing of its death He will deny it the same hope and chance of attaining the Beatific Vision that every other human being has?

It goes against everything we know of God’s infinite mercy and love and care for his creatures. I see nothing that prevents me from hoping, and I will continue to hope, thank you very much.

1 God does not garantee or OWE anyone salvation not even cute little babies.
2 That is precicely why it is such a great sin to kill a baby in an abortive act, You are denying Gods children the CHANCE at salvation. IF unbabtized babies can go to heaven THEN killing them is not exactly a bad thing since now God can bring them to heaven.

 

[Potato1]

As for Thomas Aquinas - I respect him, but he was totally wrong on the Immaculate Conception, so he can easily be wrong on limbo too.

As for baptism by desire - whatever. Move the whole scenario forward to the actual baptism then. She’s getting baptised in the middle of next month. So May 10th - eternal damnation, May 20th - hunky dory. Still about as clear as mud.

1 Im sure you have been wrong more than Thomas Aquinas, I know I have. So maybe it is you who are wrong.
2 Why get baptized at all then. Maybe you could do it nex year or in fifty years. Oh wait, I know, it is because the LORD COMMANDED US TO FOR SALVATION. If she was dying right now the first words out of your mouth would be "I baptize dyou in the name of the Father the Son and The Holy Spirit, so obviously your hope springs not eternal.

 

[rescath]

Firstly - I reedited the post, please reread. The Catechism makes clear that the main pain of Hell is indeed the loss of God’s presence - more painful than being physically tortured for eternity. Limbo, involving the same loss of God’s presence, must also be painful to a large degree.

That’s the “pain of loss” that comes from the guilt / culpability of having done something to actively forfeit the beatific vision, and not from the lack of beatific vision itself, which transcends nature and is not necessary for perfect natural happiness.

As for Thomas Aquinas - I respect him, but he was totally wrong on the Immaculate Conception, so he can easily be wrong on limbo too.

No, he really wasn’t, but that’s an entirely different thread. No, St. Thomas is not infallible – but he has a great deal of authority among theologians.

As for baptism by desire - whatever. Move the whole scenario forward to the actual baptism then. She’s getting baptised in the middle of next month. So May 10th - eternal damnation, May 20th - hunky dory. Still about as clear as mud.

What is so difficult about that? Baptism removes Original Sin. That’s been the teaching of the Catholic Church from day one. It was what Our Lord taught.

Why are they putting it off for a month? We had our children baptized within about 4-5 days, as soon as we could arrange it after my wife left the hospital.

Another thing is that one could perform the baptism in a situation of danger to the baby. I had a nephew born premature weiging 1 lb. 1 oz., and my wife and directed them to immediately perform a baptism at his birth.

I wonder how many children will die before baptism as a result of the glorious “ITC Report”. You can already see them starting to do damage control [according to the Zenit summary] in saying something like, “Uhm, well, still, parents have an obligation to, uhm, must, uhm, get their children baptized for, uhm, some [unknown] reason because, well, it’s probably a more perfect, or, somehow better, thing to do, you know. See?” Yeah, right. They know EXACTLY what’s going to happen if people start thinking this way. Well, we’ll get baby baptized in about six months when grandma and grandpa are able to travel up from Florida.

 

[cor]

Trent limited itself to saying “or the desire thereof”. The Church has not yet defined whether that desire MUST BE explicit, or not it can also include an IMPLICIT desire. That is still an open question.

Some theologians have given opinions that the desire of the parents suffices for the faith of the child. Some have posited that the faith of the Church can suffice as well.

How can they have an implicit desire when they don’t have the use of reason? As for the desire of the Christian parents – are you then saying that those born to non-Christian parents do not benefit from baptism of desire and are thus condemned to Hell?

 

[cor]

On the issue of unbaptized infants listen to audiosancto.com/audio/20070422_Sermon_GoodShepherdSunday_OnLimbo.mp3

Also read “Could Limbo Be Abolished?” by Father Brian W. Harrison, O.S. He is theologian at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico.

It has always been the doctrine of the Church that unbaptized infants cannot enter Heaven because they die with Original Sin on their souls. And they cannot receive a Baptism of Desire because they have not the Use of Reason.

Here’s a link to the article by Fr Harrison you referenced (perhaps you forgot to include the link):

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

 

[cor]

It has never been a doctrine. It has been a common teaching based upon theologians trying to recognize the need for baptism to enter thekingdom of heaven and God’s universal will that all be saved.

That unbaptized infants was indeed Church teaching, being taught by popes and bishops. “Doctrine” means teaching. And since it included the teaching of popes it was official teaching. Pope Pius XII taught:

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death. Without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. . . . so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3462

Jimmy Akin quotes the above passage in his blog and affirms that it was indeed once Church doctrine:

**That was Church teaching (doctrine). **It was not, however, Church dogma, and for some time (centuries, actually), theologians had been entertaining possible ways by which salvation could be achieved for such infants. These often centered on the idea that such children might experience a form of baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

However, a common teaching and a doctrine are quite different things. The Church has never established that an infant that dies has absolutely no way of being sanctified. The Church admits the possibility and the hope that God somehow makes a way for these to be saved. It is not an assurance of faith, but it is founded in the virtue of hope.

My understanding is that the virtue of hope involves hoping for one’s own salvation, not the salvation of others. It is a desire for heaven accompanied by a trust in the promises of God to get there.

The Church has never taught that every single Church doctrine is infallible. It shouldn’t surprise us therefore if something that was sometimes taught by some popes and even many bishops is no longer taught or is being in some way revised.

 

[cor]

Those theologians you cited have no knowledge about the notion of a “formal motive of belief”, without which there is no faith, that formal motive being the authority of the Church. St. Pius X dealt with it in a document he wrote.

Could you cite and perhaps quote this? My understanding is that the formal motive of faith is the authority of God revealing. That is why it is called “divine faith.” Catholics have faith that is both divine and catholic, the latter predicate meaning it is also based on the authority of the Church. So Protestants don’t have catholic faith, but they can as I understand it have divine faith (a Catholic can have non-catholic divine faith also such as the personal recipient of a private revelation)

We can see in the example of Father Feeney the theological climate that prevailed before and led directly to Vatican II. While some on this thread have been hostile to Father Feeny, let’s look at what he was fighting against.

I’m glad someone already mentioned how Fr Feeney was reconciled to the Church. I would like to mention also that Feeneyism is not considered a heresy by the Catholic Church. There’s no document that labels it a heresy. It is contrary to the teaching of the magisterium however.

O it comes to mind that if the authority of the Church were necessary for divine faith to be true, then the Old Testament saints would not have had true divine faith – yet we know they did since the virtue of charity (love of God) cannot subsist without the virtue of faith and they must have had the virtue of charity to have been in the state of grace and in paradise after their deaths awaiting the glory of heaven.

PS Someone said that all Church doctrines always have some basis in scripture. I don’t think the Church teaches this. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true of course. But it may be that some Church doctrines have their basis in sacred Tradition which is also the word of God transmitted to us through other means.

 

[LilyM]

1 God does not garantee or OWE anyone salvation not even cute little babies.
2 That is precicely why it is such a great sin to kill a baby in an abortive act, You are denying Gods children the CHANCE at salvation. IF unbabtized babies can go to heaven THEN killing them is not exactly a bad thing since now God can bring them to heaven.

Rot. Of course killing an unbaptised baby (or anyone) is still a heinous act regardless - it’s God’s prerogative alone to take each person’s life at the time he sees fit and not ours to shorten it by murder - of the unborn or the adult, regardless of the state of their souls!

And I’m not saying God owes everyone salvation, some clearly do and would reject him no matter what he offers.

He owes each person the choice to be saved or damned rather than arbitrarily and through no fault of their own throwing them into hell or any euphemistically-rendered-supposedly-nicer-sounding version thereof.

God gave that much choice to Satan, and to Adam and Eve - remember that to them, and to the righteous Patriarchs, that chance was extended centuries after their own deaths, upon Christ’s death. He gives that much chance to every person who reaches the age of reason. In the case of Mary and John the Baptist he was able to remove the taint of Original Sin *before their birth *even. Why can we not at least hope that he does so with other babies too?

And you’re dead wrong Lazlo. Read paragraph 1035 of the Catechism, on hell, which I posted earlier - the chief pain is SEPARATION from God - plain and simple - not any ‘consciousness’ of having rejected him, although such would certainly add to it.

Anyone who is willingly or innocently separated from God for eternity would of course feel pain from the mere fact of separation. NO human being can be truly happy without God, on earth or in eternity. He is the source of ALL happiness! We say that in the Preface most masses.

 

[FTS]

Lilym and Marybee, I have been reading your posts and wholeheartedly agree with your analysis. Many on here are in danger of making contradictory statements. On one hand they recognize the TRUTH that faithful Catholics can believe in Limbo or in the salvation of “unbaptised babies”, but on the other hand they pretend it is impossible for these babies to be saved. We must face reality here. There is no infallible revelation that have been revealed on the subject. Faithful Catholics can personally choose to believe in Limbo, or that “unbaptised babies” can go to Heaven. Personally, I strongly believe in the salvation of those babies. We all think of water baptism, but we must not disregard the truth of baptism of blood (martyrs) and the baptism of desire. Non-baptised adults, whether it be Christians or non-Christians, can be baptised by desire if they live their lives in a holy manner according to God’s moral precepts, seeking to do His will to the best of their ability. Through invisible ignorance, this is possible. They will judged on what they did with what knowledge they are given, as little as it may be. We do know that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that those who die in Original Sin cannot enter Heaven. But if someone is validly baptised, whether it be via water, blood, or desire, the stain of Original Sin is removed and their soul is filled with sanctifying grace. I strongly believe that “unbaptised babies” are actually validly baptised, via baptism of desire. I will explain further in a bit. Some people have displayed quotes from some Catholic theologians in the past, as well as some Popes who personally believed in Limbo. None of those quotes were infallible. I can just as quickly state that many current Catholic theologians, as well as Pope JPII and current Pope Benedict XVI have shown a tendency towards believing that “unbaptised babies” can achieve eternal salvation. The recent document approved by Pope Benedict XVI shows this clearly. There are not a whole lot of minds wiser than this man, and consider this before you dismiss those who do not believe in Limbo. There is a reason why the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us we can hope and believe that “unbaptised babies” can go to Heaven. You know why? Because we can! You are entitled to believe in Limbo, but we are just as entitled to believe in the eternal salvation of “unbaptised babies” (and by that I actually mean non-water baptised, they are validly baptised by desire imo). When an abortionist murders a child, I don’t think that he or she has the power to bar them from Heaven. Nobody has that power to bar someone from Heaven but God. We are judged by God in our own unique situations in life, not by human beings. On to the specifics of baptism of desire…

I have heard of the theory that the desire of Christian parents can cause a baptism of desire for the child, but I personally disagree with this particular theory. This is why…according to that theory, unbaptised babies of Christian families would be baptised by desire and enter Heaven, but not so for Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, etc…families. It is just my personal opinion, but I do not think that is so, and wouldn’t give credence to the great justice and mercy of God, who loves all His children from the moment of their conception. However, there are three different theories within “baptism of desire” that I find highly plausible and likely to be true. They are…

1. At the very moment before death, they are supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him.
2. The prayers of saints or angels in Heaven for these babies could, through the unique allowance and power of God, enable a Baptism of Desire for the child.
3. All people have a built-in desire for God. Some of us pursue this and others don’t, through their own free will. Since babies are innocent and lack free will and reason, some would say immediately preceding death this built-in desire for God would create a valid baptism of desire.

I will re-state that it is entirely acceptable for Catholics to believe in Limbo, but likewise it is entirely acceptable to believe that “unbaptised babies” are actually vaIidly baptised via “baptism of desire” and are saved. I am not sure which of these three theories of “baptism of desire” I find most likely. But through whatever particular form or theory within Baptism of Desire for unbaptised babies, I strongly believe that as being children of God, in His great mercy and love God would welcome them into His heavenly kingdom.

 

[mikey526]

We trust in the infinate love and mercy of God to take all baptized and unbaptised persons who lead good lives into his heavenly kingdom.

 

[litllulu]

Firstly - I reedited the post, please reread. The Catechism makes clear that the main pain of Hell is indeed the loss of God’s presence - more painful than being physically tortured for eternity. Limbo, involving the same loss of God’s presence, must also be painful to a large degree.

As for Thomas Aquinas - I respect him, but he was totally wrong on the Immaculate Conception, so he can easily be wrong on limbo too.

As for baptism by desire - whatever. Move the whole scenario forward to the actual baptism then. She’s getting baptised in the middle of next month. So May 10th - eternal damnation, May 20th - hunky dory. Still about as clear as mud.

Thanks LilyM, I can’t agree more. I think that what we are trying to say is Baptism of water is not some kind of Magic Trick. God is bigger than that.

 

[litllulu]

According to the ‘infants have no reasoning’ argument, then a mentally retarded person can not enter Heaven without baptism either. Too bad for those with Downs they are just SOL! God discriminates against the mentall ill, mentally handicapped, and retarded people too then.

 

[gorman64]

cor:

Could you cite and perhaps quote this? My understanding is that the formal motive of faith is the authority of God revealing. That is why it is called “divine faith.” Catholics have faith that is both divine and catholic, the latter predicate meaning it is also based on the authority of the Church. So Protestants don’t have catholic faith, but they can as I understand it have divine faith (a Catholic can have non-catholic divine faith also such as the personal recipient of a private revelation)

Dear Cor,

No, the above is incorrect. There are doctrines that are classified as (I) de fide (dogmas) that must be believed with a divine and catholic faith. There are many other doctrines that are classified as follows: (II) Of Divine Faith, (III) Proximate to Faith, (IV) Of Ecclesiastical Faith, (V) Theologically Certain, (IV) Catholic Teaching, and (VII) Safe Teaching.

Of course, dissent from a dogma is heresy…but your assent of certitude is required on III , IV, and V. It is a mortal sin to dissent.

From Canon George Smith Ph.D., D.D., “Must I believe it?”, originally published in Clergy Review:

The doctrines of faith thus proposed by the Church are called dogmas, the act by which the faithful accept them is called Catholic faith, or divine-Catholic faith, and the act by which they reject them - should they unhappily do so - is called heresy.

But there are other truths in the Catholic religion which are not formally revealed by God but which nevertheless are so connected with revealed truth that their denial would lead to the rejection of God’s word, and concerning these the Church, the guardian as well as the teacher of the revealed word, exercises an infallible teaching authority. "Dogmatic facts,"2 theological conclusions, doctrines - whether of faith or morals - involved in the legislation of the Church, in the condemnation of books or persons, in the canonization of saints, in the approbation of religious orders - all these are matters coming within the infallible competence of the Church, all these are things which every Catholic is bound to believe when the Church pronounces upon them in the exercise of her supreme and infallible teaching office. He accepts them not by divine-Catholic faith, for God has not revealed them, but by ecclesiastical faith, by an assent which is based upon the infallible authority of the divinely appointed Church. Theologians, however, point out that even ecclesiastical faith is at least mediately divine, since it is God who has revealed that His Church is to be believed: "He that heareth you heareth me."

Gorman

 

[Christophorus]

Pax Vobiscum,

Does anyone else feel we have become too similar to the Pharisees?

Please no one flame me I’m just reading some of these posts and their making me nervous.

Gratia et Pax.

 

[litllulu]

Pax Vobiscum,

Does anyone else feel we have become too similar to the Pharisees?

Please no one flame me I’m just reading some of these posts and their making me nervous.

Gratia et Pax.

I have said that many times. Watch out you might get an infraction from the mods, i did!

Anyway, Yes, I do. And what did Jesus say to them? “The prostitutes and tax collectors will enter Heaven before you”

I think we could apply that here to those babes. They may enter Heaven before us. To those who have been given more (baptism) more will be expected!

 

[gorman64]

Christophorus:

Pax Vobiscum,

Does anyone else feel we have become too similar to the Pharisees?

Christophorus:

What you are effectively saying is that Pope Pius XII was pharisaical when he was officially speaking in a matter of faith and morals.

Gorman