Salvation outside the church

[chypmonk]

The Fathers of the Church are all unanimous that Baptism of Blood is salvific. How about a mother who is 8-months pregnant with an unborn child whom she fully intends to sacramentally baptize after birth, yet she is martyred prior to giving birth? Are you saying that she would go to Heaven but that her unborn baby would go to Hell?

Unanimous? A few held it and one was a heretic, Tertullian.

I know there is a case for “Baptism” of Blood and “Baptism” of Desire but neither is BAPTISM. They are metaphors for the Sacrament of Baptism. Because there is only “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;”(Ephesians 4:5). They are similar in theory,( i.e. all they are theories, granted with some tradition with small"t") Clearly the quote you called into question is from the Council of Carthage, which was claimed in the Council of Emphasis, that the Council of Carthage was the holy sees own and is strongly held to be Zosimus’ infallible “Tratoria”

Regardless you are insinuating there is more than One Baptism and I think that is erroneous, because while it wasn’t the intention of the Council of Florence to condemn the theory of “Baptism” of Blood, but by its wording it seriously calls it into question:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches…** no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ**, unless abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church [he will not be saved].”

So I remain seriously skeptical of the “Baptism” of Blood and of “Baptism” of Desire as well–neither make one worthy to receive the other sacraments like real Baptism; neither makes one a member of the Church; neither makes one subject to the Holy Father (de facto); and only “Baptism” of Blood seems to wipe away reparation for all sins.

Another reason I remain skeptical of these theories, is the dogmatic letter to Flavian, which is accepted by west and east as infallible, and says the Sanctification of the Sacrament of Baptism canNOT be separated from it.:

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

I will agree there is much confusion on this issue and as one studies it it seems to touch so many aspects of the Church: membership? salvation? evangelization? necessity of sacraments? ecumenism? vocations? evolution (aka. development) of doctrine; does truth have any value?..etc…

So while I don’t agree with you, but acknowledge you have some reasons to do so, but my position is equally valid, if not more so, because I have dogmatic definitions on my side. But God has seen fit to let this controversy exist so we all must be patient. If you all pray to know the truth you will see it.

God Bless

 

[Jehannette]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches…** no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ**, unless abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church [he will not be saved].”

The text that you cite in Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence is, in fact, a quote. It comes from a book written by Saint Fulgentius (who died in 533 AD) called To Peter on the Faith:

“Anyone who has received the Sacrament of Baptism but remained away from the Catholic Church is never prepared to obtain eternal life. Such a person, even if he is very generous with almsgiving and even pours out his blood for the name of Christ, because of the fact that in this life he has not held tightly to the unity of the Catholic Church, he will not have eternal salvation. …] Hold most firmly and never doubt that any heretic or schismatic whatsoever, baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, if he will not have been gathered into the Catholic Church, no matter how many alms he may have given, even if he shed his blood for the name of Christ, can never be saved.”

However, in that very same book, Saint Fulgentius, also states:

From that time onward when our Saviour said, “If any one is not reborn from water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” no one can receive either the kingdom of heaven or eternal life without the Sacrament of Baptism, apart from those who poured out their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church but without baptism…

So, even Saint Fulgentius, acknowledges the fact that there are individuals in Paradise who died without sacramental Baptism. Indeed,

“Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13)

This is why the Council of Florence at Basel, recognizing what Saint Fulgentius and all the other Fathers taught, would also declare:

The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following…

So, it is our love for God, and by extension, His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, which unites us to Him, and hence, His Mystical Body, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church.

 

[Hamlet123]

I know there is a case for “Baptism” of Blood and “Baptism” of Desire but neither is BAPTISM. They are metaphors for the Sacrament of Baptism. Because there is only “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;”(Ephesians 4:5). They are similar in theory,( i.e. all they are theories, granted with some tradition with small"t") Clearly the quote you called into question is from the Council of Carthage, which was claimed in the Council of Emphasis, that the Council of Carthage was the holy sees own and is strongly held to be Zosimus’ infallible “Tratoria”

Regardless you are insinuating there is more than One Baptism and I think that is erroneous, because while it wasn’t the intention of the Council of Florence to condemn the theory of “Baptism” of Blood, but by its wording it seriously calls it into question:

There is only one cake. Sometimes that cake is chocolate, sometimes vanilla sometimes there is no icing on it. “One” can come in many forms. There is only one Baptism; Catholic/Christian. There are three forms of this one baptism. Desire, Water, Blood.

The CCC is so very clear that there are three forms of the one Baptism;, read CCC paragraphs 1256 to 1270. And note from paragraph 1257 of the CCC, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by His sacraments".

This (incorrect) idea that one must be a Roman Catholic in order to be saved, is freighting and upsetting that this concepts is being promulgated by people within God’s One, Holy and Apostolic Church. This false teaching will cause pain beyond human repair.

 

[Jehannette]

This (incorrect) idea that one must be a Roman Catholic in order to be saved, is freighting and upsetting that this concepts is being promulgated by people within God’s One, Holy and Apostolic Church. This false teaching will cause pain beyond human repair.

It was defined at the Council of Florence that one must “before death they are joined with Her…no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” Of course, as the Fathers at the Council of Florence recognized (in the case of catechumens), such membership in the Catholic Church does not necessarily (and always) mean canonical membership. Telling individuals that they “do not need to be Catholic” is formally heretical and false.

 

[Hamlet123]

It was defined at the Council of Florence that one must “before death they are joined with Her…no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” Of course, as the Fathers at the Council of Florence recognized, such membership in the Catholic Church does not necessarily (and always) mean canonical membership. Telling individuals that they do not “need to be Catholic” is formally heretical and false.

Well then, it appears we either have a conflict in church teaching (because the current CCC clearly says there are three forms of the one baptism), or the document you are noting contains a lack of clarifty. Feelings are a dangerous thing to depend on when reason is in question. I realize that is the position I am in. Never the less, the church has had to clarify many of Her teachings. For the moment, I choose to accept what is in the current CCC. It is clear, it is logical, it is compassionate. If there is a good explanation for what appears (here) for the difference I will begrungingly accept it as Jerome did the Seven books of the OT.

But do not forget paragraph 1257 of the CCC " God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. " and

Paragraph 1258, "The Church has always held the firm (HAS ALWAYS HELD FIRM!!!) conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This BAPTISM OF BLOOD, like the DESIRE FOR BAPTISM, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

and
Paragraph 1260 " ‘Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way know to God, of the Paschal mystery’ " GS 22 paragraph 5, cf LG 16 and AG 7
"Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have DESIRED BAPTISM EXPLICITLY if they had know it necessary "

This is from our Magistarium, this is logical this taste like love. This document notes that this has ALWAYS BEEN HELD… so this document begs the questions: 1. What did the document you are quoting mean or what authority did it have, and 2. Why would one be so inclinded to accept a theory otherwise that is so very much against love.

 

[Jehannette]

The CCC also states this:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

 

[Hamlet123]

The CCC also states this:

Thank you:thumbsup:

 

[glarryb]

It is just this type of reasoning that I left Christianity. If you do not believe in this new thing then no matter how you live your life you will go to hell. God gave man the 10 commandments long before Christianity came along and said that the old testament was good for teaching. This never changed. We were to know that there is a god. Not just believe or have faith, faith being the lowest form of knowing. I would suggest that the original person who has questions first search the old testament before searching the new testament. Google noahide, the ancient path, there is also “Aish” dot com, many great courses there for free. Once you learn Gods original teachings, and that there is no need for blood sacrifice, or human sacrifice, for the forgiveness of sins, your question will answer itself.

 

[chypmonk]

His colleague, Saint Jerome, was not so sure:

Yes, indeed, “another remedy” does exist but it “can (not) be brought to them”:

Unlike Saint Augustine (who changed his mind on the fate of infants who die without sacramental Baptism, as he did on other issues), the Council of Carthage did not follow Saint Augustine and include the word “sacrament” (or, “sacramental,” “sacrament of,” etc.) in their definition:

Can you provide evidence St. Augustine changed his mind about infants being saved without the sacrament of Baptism and that St. Jerome thought infants can be saved without the Sacrament?

BTW the quote of St. Pope Zosimus infallibly defined in his Tractoria, does mention the sacrament by definition (Jn 3:5)
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), =the sacrament of Baptism] what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

I think you never looked at the link I provided.

 

[Jehannette]

It is just this type of reasoning that I left Christianity. If you do not believe in this new thing then no matter how you live your life you will go to hell. God gave man the 10 commandments long before Christianity came along and said that the old testament was good for teaching. This never changed. We were to know that there is a god. Not just believe or have faith, faith being the lowest form of knowing. I would suggest that the original person who has questions first search the old testament before searching the new testament. Google noahide, the ancient path, there is also “Aish” dot com, many great courses there for free. Once you learn Gods original teachings, and that there is no need for blood sacrifice, or human sacrifice, for the forgiveness of sins, your question will answer itself.

It’s never been “black/white.” Here are some quotes from Saint Thomas Aquinas on implicit faith:

No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament. (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.106, a.1, ad 3)

Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.5)

It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Mat. 28:19: “Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.8 )

Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ, as is clear from their predictions. Thus we read ( Job 19:25): “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” The Sibyl too foretold certain things about Christ, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xiii, 15). Moreover, we read in the history of the Romans, that at the time of Constantine Augustus and his mother Irene a tomb was discovered, wherein lay a man on whose breast was a golden plate with the inscription: “Christ shall be born of a virgin, and in Him, I believe. O sun, during the lifetime of Irene and Constantine, thou shalt see me again”*. If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: “Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.7, ad 3)

Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith. (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.10, a.4, ad 3)

Though all do not know explicitly the power of the sacrifices, they know it implicitly, even as they have implicit faith, as stated above (q. 2, AA 6,7). (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.85 a.4, ad 2)

As stated above (a. 1, ad 2; q. 68, a. 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but aferwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.” (Summa Theologica, IIIa q.69, a.4, ad 2)

Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit or implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above (a. 1): it can, however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is formally perfected by the priestly absolution, as stated above (q. 87, a. 2). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is required for the forgiveness of venial sin, for although this infusion takes place in every sacrament, it does not occur in every act of virtue. (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.87, a.2, ad 2)

As stated above (a. 2), no infusion of fresh grace is required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to have an act proceeding from grace, in detestation of that venial sin, either explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently to God. Hence, for three reasons… (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.87, a.3)

Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at least implicitly. (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.66, a.6, ad 2)

 

[Hamlet123]

Can you provide evidence St. Augustine changed his mind about infants being saved without the sacrament of Baptism and that St. Jerome thought infants can be saved without the Sacrament?

BTW the quote of St. Pope Zosimus infallibly defined in his Tractoria, does mention the sacrament by definition (Jn 3:5)
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), =the sacrament of Baptism] what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

I think you never looked at the link I provided.

How do we know that Pope Zosimus’ Tractoria was under the charisma of infallibility? I am not saying you are wrong; I am trying to educate myself regarding recognizing when something is considered infallible. Now please do not misunderstand, I do feel uncomfortable that there is a conflict in communications of the current Magisterium and the past ones that you have quoted. The current Catechism clearly says that a baby can go to heaven, that one does not (necessarily) have to be Water Baptized etc.

I am also curious why you do not give weight to current doctrine and try to find what is the proper reconcilation between (what appears) as differences. The current Catechism says,
“…(teaching) has ALWAYS held…” the view that one does not need a formal baptism under certain circumstances… How do you reconcile the (apparent) differences?

Thank you; I hope I do not appear acerbic. “Love conquers all”

 

[Jehannette]

Can you provide evidence St. Augustine changed his mind about infants being saved without the sacrament of Baptism

The second answer is, that to perish is not the same as not to be blessed: since eternal happiness is a gift entirely gratuitous; and therefore the want of it is not a punishment. The opinion, therefore, of St. Thomas is very just, that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss; not the pain of sense, he says, “because pain of sense corresponds to conversion to creatures; and in original sin there is not conversion to creatures” (as the fault is not our own), “and therefore pain of sense is not due to original sin;” because original sin does not imply an act. Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: “When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself (believe me) in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say.” And in another place he writes that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: “Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works.” This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Children will be sentenced by the just Judge neither to the glory of heaven nor to punishment.” St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: “The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness.” (The Great Means of Salvation & Perfection by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church)

and that St. Jerome thought infants can be saved without the Sacrament?

”Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they have the honor of the kingdom." (Jurgen’s The Faith of Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, 1979, pp. 169-170, under St. Ambrose of Milan, Abraham [A.D. 387], paragraph 1324)

BTW the quote of St. Pope Zosimus infallibly defined in his Tractoria, does mention the sacrament by definition (Jn 3:5)
“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), =the sacrament of Baptism] what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

I think you never looked at the link I provided.

I have a copy of Denzinger’s and have read the canon. Trent states the same thing:

“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4)

The Roman Catechism gave the authentic interpretation of that canon:

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation…"

With respect to infants, the Roman Catechism states:

“The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.”

Clearly, the Roman Catechism, by stating “solemn Baptism” is indicating sacramental Baptism, however, the adjective is dropped in the very next sentence. The authors could have said “sacramental Baptism,” “sacrament of Baptism,” “Baptism in Water,” etc.; instead, they just said “Baptism.” Clearly, they were teaching that the grace of the Sacrament may, by the grace of the Triune God, be attained without the actual Sacrament, but to quote Jean Gerson, a prominent theologian at the Council of Constance, “no certainty exists without a revelation.” Note also the “with safety” clause; clearly, in the eyes of the authors of the Roman Catechism, the “house is not on fire” with respect to infants being baptized.

The same is true of the Fathers at the Council of Carthage. Everyone, without exception, is bound to sacramental Baptism in Water, but that does not mean that God is “bound by his sacraments.” In the eyes of Carthage, infants were bound to be sacramentally baptized in water, however, that does not mean that the One and Triune God could not infuse the grace of Baptism in their souls if He so chooses to do so. To claim otherwise would be to deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, our Blessed Mother’s singular grace of having been conceived without original sin.

 

[chypmonk]

The text that you cite in Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence is, in fact, a quote. It comes from a book written by Saint Fulgentius (who died in 533 AD) called To Peter on the Faith:

However, in that very same book, Saint Fulgentius, also states:

So, even Saint Fulgentius, acknowledges the fact that there are individuals in Paradise who died without sacramental Baptism. Indeed,

This is why the Council of Florence at Basel, recognizing what Saint Fulgentius and all the other Fathers taught, would also declare:

So, it is our love for God, and by extension, His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, which unites us to Him, and hence, His Mystical Body, which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church.

I assume you are using Fr. Most to bring-up what was in the minds of those at the council by bringing-up Saint Fulgentius. But Fr. Most breaks his own principle:

Fr. Most writes:

Before going ahead we need to notice one more principle of interpretation. It is this:
the only things guaranteed in statements of the Magisterium, and protected in lesser ways in the works of the Fathers, are the things explicitly set down on paper. We may indeed know historically that certain thoughts, more extensive, [maybe] were in the minds of the writers. Yet Divine Providence has committed itself to protect only the explicitly written texts, not what is merely in the mind and unexpressed.

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

In the same article he goes on to tell us what is in the minds of the council fathers but ignores that we CAN NOT assume to think that what is unexpressed is the mind of the Church.

you also wrote that St.Fulgentius contradicted himself :
From that time onward when our Saviour said, “If any one is not reborn from water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” no one can receive either the kingdom of heaven or eternal life without the Sacrament of Baptism, apart from those who poured out their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church but without baptism… I would like to see the whole quote after the … because it seems like a strange phrase to say “but without baptism…”

If he simply meant “without baptism” he would have said it–without the “BUT”. It seems he didn’t complete his thought from your quote. And one is not a member of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism as all divines teach. But he seems to say they are in the Church(in red) so I would like the whole quote or better yet the whole document.

Never the less this is a rabbit trail. All we know is what is written by the council. what was in their minds is anybody’s guess.

Plus Saint Fulgentius also teaches the damnation of unbaptized infants

 

[chypmonk]

I have a copy of Denzinger’s and have read the canon. Trent states the same thing:

The Roman Catechism gave the authentic interpretation of that canon:

With respect to infants, the Roman Catechism states:

Clearly, the Roman Catechism, by stating “solemn Baptism” is indicating sacramental Baptism, however, the adjective is dropped in the very next sentence. The authors could have said “sacramental Baptism,” “sacrament of Baptism,” “Baptism in Water,” etc.; instead, they just said “Baptism.” Clearly, they were teaching that the grace of the Sacrament may, by the grace of the Triune God, be attained without the actual Sacrament, but to quote Jean Gerson, a prominent theologian at the Council of Constance, “no certainty exists without a revelation.” Note also the “with safety” clause; clearly, in the eyes of the authors of the Roman Catechism, the “house is not on fire” with respect to infants being baptized.

The same is true of the Fathers at the Council of Carthage. Everyone, without exception, is bound to sacramental Baptism in Water, but that does not mean that God is “bound by his sacraments.” In the eyes of Carthage, infants were bound to be sacramentally baptized in water, however, that does not mean that the One and Triune God could not infuse the grace of Baptism in their souls if He so chooses to do so. To claim otherwise would be to deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, our Blessed Mother’s singular grace of having been conceived without original sin.

You provided no quotes to your assertion that St. Augustine retracted his thoughts on the impossibility of infants being saved without baptism, nor Jerrome’s. So I will assume they don’t exist.

If you want to start on Trent it will take some time.

 

[Jehannette]

I assume you are using Fr. Most to bring-up what was in the minds of those at the council by bringing-up Saint Fulgentius. But Fr. Most breaks his own principle:

Fr. Most writes:
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

In the same article he goes on to tell us what is in the minds of the council fathers but ignores that we CAN NOT assume to think that what is unexpressed is the mind of the Church.

you also wrote that St.Fulgentius contradicted himself :
From that time onward when our Saviour said, “If any one is not reborn from water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” no one can receive either the kingdom of heaven or eternal life without the Sacrament of Baptism, apart from those who poured out their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church but without baptism… I would like to see the whole quote after the … because it seems like a strange phrase to say “but without baptism…”

If he simply meant “without baptism” he would have said it–without the “BUT”. It seems he didn’t complete his thought from your quote. And one is not a member of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism as all divines teach. But he seems to say they are in the Church(in red) so I would like the whole quote or better yet the whole document.

Never the less this is a rabbit trail. All we know is what is written by the council. what was in their minds is anybody’s guess.

Plus Saint Fulgentius also teaches the damnation of unbaptized infants

The Council of Florence at Basel also states:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Session 22—15 October 1435)

If Saint Thomas was in error about

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

it is difficult to imagine the Church allowing such an error to go uncorrected.

 

[chypmonk]

For those following this thread, you may say to yourself. Jehannette, provided quotes from Augustine and Jerome. How can you chypmonk say he didn’t?

Well I hate to say Jehannette is being deceptive, I will assume he just isn’t educated in the doctrine of Limbo. His quotes point to the dilemma of suffering for Augustine.The debate on Limbo was not whether it existed or not but what was it’s nature.
The council of Florence and the council of Lyons both teach, those dying with ONLY Original Sin go to hell (which is understood as the place of the loss of the beatific vision, like Jesus descended into Hell):
Council of Lyons II “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, 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)

Jerome simple said he didn’t know. And Augustine went back and forth on the nature of the infants existence, ie. if they suffered the torment of hell fire ever so slightly. The doctrine of Limbo usually accepted since St. Thomas is the only thing the infants suffer is the suffering of the loss of the Beatific Vision-heaven. Thomas thought they had a natural paradise; Catharinus had taught — that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode ( De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4)read about Limbo here

 

[Jehannette]

For those following this thread, you may say to yourself. Jehannette, provided quotes from Augustine and Jerome. How can you chypmonk say he didn’t?

Well I hate to say Jehannette is being deceptive, I will assume he just isn’t educated in the doctrine of Limbo. His quotes point to the dilemma of suffering for Augustine.The debate on Limbo was not whether it existed or not but what was it’s nature.
The council of Florence and the council of Lyons both teach, those dying with ONLY Original Sin go to hell (which is understood as the place of the loss of the beatific vision, like Jesus descended into Hell):
Council of Lyons II “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, 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)

Jerome simple said he didn’t know. And Augustine went back and forth on the nature of the infants existence, ie. if they suffered the torment of hell fire ever so slightly. The doctrine of Limbo usually accepted since St. Thomas is the only thing the infants suffer is the suffering of the loss of the Beatific Vision-heaven. Thomas thought they had a natural paradise; Catharinus had taught — that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode ( De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4)read about Limbo here

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a 12th-century theologian and a Doctor of the Church, wrote to a couple who had suffered a miscarriage,

“Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.”

Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, in his commentary on Thomas’ Summa, stated,

“that children still within the womb of their mother are able to be saved . . . through the sacrament of baptism that is received, not in reality, but in the desire of the parents.”

A century earlier Jean Gerson, a prominent theologian, stated at the Council of Constance,

“women great with child, and their husbands, to use their prayers for their infant that is not yet born, that (if it be to die before it come to the grace of baptism with water) the Lord Jesus would vouchsafe to sanctify it beforehand with the baptism of his holy Spirit. Nay, who would not devoutly hope, that he will not despise the prayer of his humble servants that trust in him? This consideration is useful to raise devotion in the parents, and to ease their trouble of mind, if the child die without baptism; forasmuch as all hope is not taken away. But yet there is, I confess, no certainty exists without a revelation.”

 

[chypmonk]

The Council of Florence at Basel also states:

If Saint Thomas was in error about

it is difficult to imagine the Church allowing such an error to go uncorrected.

I already covered the quote from Florence, that you took out of context, they were specifying a specific teaching not saying all theologians are infallible! Why are you bringing it up again?

St. Thomas was a believer in the doctrine of Limbo so your quote mining is kind of useless. Read the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia if you don’t believe me [here]

 

[Jehannette]

I already covered the quote from Florence, that you took out of context, they were specifying a specific teaching not saying all theologians are infallible! Why are you bringing it up again?

St. Thomas was a believer in the doctrine of Limbo so your quote mining is kind of useless. Read the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia if you don’t believe me [here]

Of course, he believed in Limbo! Point is that Saint Thomas believed that exceptions to the Law of Baptism were possible:

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

Please explain to me what Saint Thomas meant by the above?

 

[chypmonk]

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a 12th-century theologian and a Doctor of the Church, wrote to a couple who had suffered a miscarriage,

Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, in his commentary on Thomas’ Summa, stated,

A century earlier Jean Gerson, a prominent theologian, stated at the Council of Constance,

Parent’s desire?
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)