The message I sent my theology teacher

  • Thread starter Thread starter orange93
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wow… this has gotten very strange. How can we say for sure until we die that any of these things are true? of course through faith we can claim and believe but have any of us seen anything with our eyes? has anyone sensed any of this? Has anyone felt this with any of their senses?
 
Of course, the universal catechism is based, in part, on the teaching of ecumenical councils. However, a couple of posters have declared unequivicably that unbaptized infants are not in heaven.In fact, if I am reading correctly, they say they are in hell.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that we are to entrust these souls to the mercy of God. I am having trouble understanding how both positions can be true.
ok well if u ever try to convert someone or tell someone about your faith than definitely do not tell them that u believe and/or the church believes that babies who aren’t baptized and die go to hell. Besides this is not a very positive conversation. are u getting anything out of it? any of us?
 
Of course, the universal catechism is based, in part, on the teaching of ecumenical councils. However, a couple of posters have declared unequivicably that unbaptized infants are not in heaven.In fact, if I am reading correctly, they say they are in hell.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that we are to entrust these souls to the mercy of God. I am having trouble understanding how both positions can be true.
Your position regarding unbaptized infants is entirely coherent with what the Catholic Church teaches.
 
The current CCC says nothing about Limbo directly whatsoever. 😃

When the CCC was released it was noted that it did not replace local catechisms, and I will also note it was revised and changed since it’s release. In other words, it needed *correction and improvement. I expect it will be revised and changed again in the future. *

When its wording is not precise or not justified in the light of previous teaching, this can cause people to misunderstand. Books written by committees often have problems like this.

*The CCC cannot be understood alone, without previous documents and other Church writings. *🙂 In fact, for worldly people, who approach it from a secular view instead of from a proper Catholic foundation, there are statements in it general enough to be easily misunderstood.

If you pick up the CCC you will learn a lot, but there’s no sola CCC movement (at least I hope not) for good reason. It’s not a ‘super catechism’ to override and rule them all. :rolleyes:

It’s just a catechism folks. It’s not an Ecumenical Council, Papal Bull, etc. The U.S. Catechism was just revised to remove what was heresy understood directly – the U.S. Bishops Conference overlooked it, – it went unnoticed because there was an issue rarely taught in seminary or discussed today.

I know of seminaries which have used books which taught heresy, and had to be replaced. These are difficult times and ignorant ones.

Saying that people without baptism can be saved is, taken directly, heretical. It doesn’t take long to realize this. The number of times we have final authoritative testimony to this fact (and once is enough) is not small.

So we have to interpret or understand why this is said (unless you want to be sede vacantist), or use other words in line with Catholic doctrine. I expect those words are sometimes used simply to speak to people who are coming from a worldly perspective and reassure them rather than go into theological detail and express properly traditional Catholic doctrine. A method of doubtful virtue. Assuaging people’s feelings at the expense of clear doctrine can cause long term problems. The trend to do this is of recent origin.

There is one baptism – we know of three forms of it, and no others. The hope that those who have died without baptism may be saved **is hope for a baptism we were unaware of, **through some form of miracle, as a general rule. 🙂 That is what it is.

There is no other method known available that adheres to the bounds of Catholic doctrine.
 
"Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.” A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (August 15, 1832)

[The following are prescribed errors:]

"16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.

“17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc.”

Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864
 
  1. How many kinds of infidels or unbelievers are there?
There are three kinds of infidels or unbelievers: (1) Those who are guilty of the sin of infidelity; (2) those who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, but commit other great sins; and (3) those who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, and live up to the dictates of their conscience.
  1. What kind of infidels are guilty of the sin of infidelity?
All those unbaptized persons are guilty, who do not embrace the true religion, although the truths thereof have been sufficiently made known to them-like many of the Jews of whom our Lord said that they had no excuse for their sins, because He had spoken to them.

All those unbaptized persons are guilty, who have received sufficient light to know the truth, or at least to understand the danger of their position, and the obligation of making diligent inquiries to ascertain and embrace the truth, but neglect to do so.
And all those are guilty of the sin of infidelity, who willfully deny the truth and obstinately resist it.
  1. Why is it that positive infidels are not saved?
Positive infidels are not saved because, “positive infidelity, being willful obstinacy, palpable contradiction, and public contempt of divine revelation and of the precepts of the Gospel, is one of the most grievous sins in the sight of God and of His Holy Church,” says Saint Thomas Aquinas.
  1. Explain the grievousness of the sin of infidelity?
Mortal sin is a deviation from virtue and divine law. The most heinous sin, therefore, is that which separates man from God more than any other. Now, no sin causes a greater separation from God than that of positive infidelity. When the intellect is in error and abandons the knowledge of God, the will follows it and increases in malice in proportion as the intellect turns away from the path of truth, justice, and charity. Each step that such a man takes in the darkness of infidelity, increases the distance that separates him from God. A return from that dangerous course is very difficult, for when the intellect is in error and the will is filled with malice and depravity, all the bonds capable of uniting man to God are torn asunder.

If such men die in this disposition of mind they are infallibly lost, says Saint Thomas. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. 11:6.)
  1. Which kind of infidels are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, but commit other grievous sins?
Those who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity, but commit other grievous sins, are all those unbaptized persons who never had an opportunity of knowing the true religion, or of becoming aware of the obligation of seeking and embracing it, but who do not live up to the dictates of their conscience.
  1. Will this class of infidels be lost?
This class of infidels will be lost, not on account of their infidelity, which was no sin for them, but on account of other grievous sins which they committed against their conscience. “For whosoever have sinned without the law,” says Saint Paul, “shall perish without the law.” (Romans 2:12.)

25 . Will those infidels be lost, who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity and live up to their conscience?

Of those infidels who are not guilty of the sin of infidelity and are faithful in obeying the voice of their conscience, Saint Thomas Aquinas says: “If anyone was brought up in the wilderness or among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of nature to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe that God, by an inward inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as He sent Peter to Cornelius.”

Rev. Michael Müller, C.S.S.R.
 
The current CCC says nothing about Limbo directly whatsoever. 😃

When the CCC was released it was noted that it did not replace local catechisms, and I will also note it was revised and changed since it’s release. In other words, it needed *correction and improvement. I expect it will be revised and changed again in the future. *
The fact that it was revised subsequent to its initial promulgation has absolutely no bearing on its authority or relevance to Catholics.
 
Saying that people without baptism can be saved is, taken directly, heretical. .
See the Catechism 846-848. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches. That is not heresy.
 
“If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema."
  • The Ecumenical Council of Trent
“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”
  • The Ecumenical Council of Trent
-That- is the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church on baptism. Ex cathedra.

You’ll find this repeated over and over again. 🙂

I think a knowledgeable person understands you have to be indirect to reconcile the CCC with it and not instead become a sede vacantist. Which was what I said. Also of course, the CCC does not have the same authoritative weight as as ex cathedra statements of an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Pope. It’s a catechism.
 
“If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema."
  • The Ecumenical Council of Trent
“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”
  • The Ecumenical Council of Trent
-That- is the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church on baptism. Ex cathedra.

You’ll find this repeated over and over again. 🙂

I think a knowledgeable person understands you have to be indirect to reconcile the CCC with it and not instead become a sede vacantist. Which was what I said. Also of course, the CCC does not have the same authoritative weight as as ex cathedra statements of an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Pope. It’s a catechism.
Ecumenical Councils do not promulgate “ex cathedra” teachings, according to the Catholic Church. Only the Pope does such, according to Catholic teaching.

If this was a response to my previous post, I don’t see how it relates. Can you please clarify? Thanks.
 
Pope Pius IV received, and confirmed, ex cathedra, all the decrees. Which is the norm of what happens with an Ecumenical Council.

And furthermore, ex cathedra does not require a Pope. It’s a term that can be used generally for authoritative teaching. It is Latin for ‘from the chair’. 🙂

I do not know what else to say as I do not know where you are on this? Have you read much of the other thread? It really delves into the issue well with the pros and cons. 😃

"And whereas the said holy Synod, in its reverence towards the Apostolic See, and following also in the traces of the ancient Councils, has, in a decree made thereon in public Session, requested of us the confirmation of all Its decrees, passed in our time and that of our predecessors; We, being made acquainted with the request of the said Synod, first by the letters of our Legates, then, upon their return, by what they diligently reported in the name of the Synod; after mature deliberation had thereon with our venerable brethren the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, and, above all, having invoked the assistance of the Holy Spirit; after that we had ascertained that all those decrees were Catholic, and useful and salutary to the Christian people, We, to the praise of Almighty God, with the advice and assent of our brethren aforesaid, have this day, in our secret consistory, confirmed by Apostolic authority all and singular those decrees, and have ordained that the same be received and observed by all the faithful of Christ; as also, for the clearer information of all men, We do, by the tenour of this letter, confirm them, and ordain that they be received and observed.

And, in virtue of holy obedience, and under the penalties by the sacred canons appointed, and others more grievous, even those of deprivaiton, to be inflicted at our discretion, We do also command all and each of our venerable brethren, the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and all other prelates whatsoever of the churches, of what estate, grade, order and dignity soever, they may be, even though distinguished with the honour of the cardinalate, diligently to observe the said decrees and statutes in their own churches, cities, and dioceses, both in their courts of justice and elsewhere, and to cause the same to be inviolably observed, each by his own subjects, in so far as they are in any way concerned therein; silencing gainsayers, and the refractory, by means of judicial sentences, and by the censures also and ecclesiastical penalties contained in the said decrees; calling in also, if need be, the help of the secular arm. And, by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, We admonish and conjure our said most beloved son the emperor elect, and the Christian kings, republics, and princes, with that piety with which they assisted, by their ambassadors, at the Council, with the same piety and equal zeal, for the sake of God’s honour, and the salvation of their people, in reverence also towards the Apostolic See, and the sacred Synod, to support, when needful, with their assistance and countenance, the prelates in executing and observing the decrees of the said Council ; and not to permit opinions adverse to the sound and salutary doctrine of the Council to be received by the people who are under their sway, but utterly to interdict such."

Pope Pius IV
 
Pope Pius IV received, and confirmed, ex cathedra, all the decrees. Which is the norm of what happens with an Ecumenical Council.

And furthermore, ex cathedra does not require a Pope. It’s a term that can be used generally for authoritative teaching. It is Latin for ‘from the chair’. 🙂
from the VATICAN WEBSITE, THE CATECHISM STATES:
Code:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 

**846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 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.336
**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.337

**

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."338 

[vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm](http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am forever stunned when anyone tries to refute this Catholic teaching.
It boggles the mind, IMO.
 
If you’re responding to me, I have no idea what you are trying to say or respond to or what you think you are responding to. 🙂 Nothing I have said has anything to do with the reply.

I have been talking about the means that God requires. The CCC statement is simply a general reassurance about means possibly being applied.

I keep getting these off base replies.
 
If you’re responding to me, I have no idea what you are trying to say or respond to or what you think you are responding to. 🙂 Nothing I have said has anything to do with the reply.

I have been talking about the means that God requires. The CCC statement is simply a general reassurance about means possibly being applied.

I keep getting these off base replies.
Shin, go back to posts prior to Post 47
This is what you said:

“Saying that people without baptism can be saved is, taken directly, heretical. It doesn’t take long to realize this. The number of times we have final authoritative testimony to this fact (and once is enough) is not small.”

You are causing controversary;
nobody else is being “off base.”

Specifically, see POST # 43.
 
Do you deny the Council of Trent? 🙂

Because I have reconciled everything properly, but you seem to not have.
 
Do you deny the Council of Trent? 🙂

Because I have reconciled everything properly, but you seem to not have.
Can’t see that ANYONE has denied the Council of Trent.
I’m surely getting to know you better. Do you like “arguing?”
 
And furthermore, ex cathedra does not require a Pope.
Nope, according to Catholic teaching, “ex cathedra” means specifically that it was taught by the Pope, infallibly, in virtue of his office.
 
Pope Pius IV received, and confirmed, ex cathedra, all the decrees. Which is the norm of what happens with an Ecumenical Council.

And furthermore, ex cathedra does not require a Pope. It’s a term that can be used generally for authoritative teaching. It is Latin for ‘from the chair’. 🙂

I do not know what else to say as I do not know where you are on this? Have you read much of the other thread? It really delves into the issue well with the pros and cons. 😃

"And whereas the said holy Synod, in its reverence towards the Apostolic See, and following also in the traces of the ancient Councils, has, in a decree made thereon in public Session, requested of us the confirmation of all Its decrees, passed in our time and that of our predecessors; We, being made acquainted with the request of the said Synod, first by the letters of our Legates, then, upon their return, by what they diligently reported in the name of the Synod; after mature deliberation had thereon with our venerable brethren the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, and, above all, having invoked the assistance of the Holy Spirit; after that we had ascertained that all those decrees were Catholic, and useful and salutary to the Christian people, We, to the praise of Almighty God, with the advice and assent of our brethren aforesaid, have this day, in our secret consistory, confirmed by Apostolic authority all and singular those decrees, and have ordained that the same be received and observed by all the faithful of Christ; as also, for the clearer information of all men, We do, by the tenour of this letter, confirm them, and ordain that they be received and observed.

And, in virtue of holy obedience, and under the penalties by the sacred canons appointed, and others more grievous, even those of deprivaiton, to be inflicted at our discretion, We do also command all and each of our venerable brethren, the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and all other prelates whatsoever of the churches, of what estate, grade, order and dignity soever, they may be, even though distinguished with the honour of the cardinalate, diligently to observe the said decrees and statutes in their own churches, cities, and dioceses, both in their courts of justice and elsewhere, and to cause the same to be inviolably observed, each by his own subjects, in so far as they are in any way concerned therein; silencing gainsayers, and the refractory, by means of judicial sentences, and by the censures also and ecclesiastical penalties contained in the said decrees; calling in also, if need be, the help of the secular arm. And, by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, We admonish and conjure our said most beloved son the emperor elect, and the Christian kings, republics, and princes, with that piety with which they assisted, by their ambassadors, at the Council, with the same piety and equal zeal, for the sake of God’s honour, and the salvation of their people, in reverence also towards the Apostolic See, and the sacred Synod, to support, when needful, with their assistance and countenance, the prelates in executing and observing the decrees of the said Council ; and not to permit opinions adverse to the sound and salutary doctrine of the Council to be received by the people who are under their sway, but utterly to interdict such."

Pope Pius IV
How does what Pope Pius IV taught cohere with Vatican Councils I and II, which were the only ecumenical councils to teach authoritatively on infallibility (whether papal or otherwise)?
 
Ignorance is far from “bliss” and is NOT a excuse from sin. In fact, ignorance IS a sin in and of itself because the bible tells us that nothing but sin deserves punishment and 1 Corinthians 14:38 tells us that ignorance deserves punishment. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that ignorance is also a sin.
Leviticus 5:17 … "*If any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet IS he guilty, and SHALL bear his iniquity."*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top