R
Robert_Burns
Guest
I think that St Thomas Aquinas already answered that in the "Summa Theologica " under the Parameters of Natural Law as did Pope Pius the XII in excommunicating Father Feeney
- Status
T
Thomas_Aquinas_1
Guest
While I am not fan of Fr. Feeney, and believe he deserved to be excommunicated, it must be said that he was not excommunicated for heresy, but for refusing to appear in Rome for questioning. He commanded to go to Rome on three separate occaisions. The final time he was told that he would be excommunicated if he did not appear. Once again he refused the direct order and, in my opinion, he was justly excommunicated.
Today, the Feeneyite Order he founded is in union with Rome, and is allowed to believe and teach all that Fr. Feeney taught. The Feeneyite location in Still River, MA has been in normal union with Rome for years, while the one in New Hampshire was reconciled earlier this month. But it needs to be known that Rome allows the Feeneyites to hold their positions.
I personally think their positions are wrong, and I argue with them all the time; but Rome does permit them to hold their views.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Shiranui, what you are missing is that all those in original sin do NOT DESERVE HEAVEN. Original sin is in them as a personal fault, the guilt of which THEY bear as if they commited the sin themselves. THis is dogmatically taught by the church, that we are all born as Children of wrath who do not deserve salvation. Original sin does not simply consist of being spiritually dead, but spiritually dead and us bearing the punishment and the guilt for being spiritually dead. THis is the dogma of the Church.
Remember, broad is the way of destruction, and “Narrow is the gate and few who find it.”
I am sorry to say this, but the theologians and popes of the Church has taught that ignorance is a SIN. The Bible indicates as much, when it says that those who we owuld call “invincibly ignorant” are without excuse for knowing God, since his attributes can be seen in creation, and, since they do not seek to know the truth, they take what little truth they see and distort it into the worship of idols and nature. THIs is what scripture teaches in Both ROmans and the book of Wisdom:
Romans 1:18-23: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ***20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ***
SO we see here nature is sufficient to come to a knowledge of God that is significant enough to want to know more of him
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Because of their ingratitude towards what they did know, they had the light of God withdrawn from their minds.
And Wisdom 13:1-10
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from **the good things seen **did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; 2 But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. 3 Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. 4 Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. 5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. 6 But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.
“This is what everyone I have talked to says: THey were looking for GOd, God knows their hearts, don’t judge them!” It is a symptom of the infection of liberalism.
But what does scripture go on to say?
7 **For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. 8 But again, not even these are pardonable. 9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD? **10 But doomed are they, and in dead things are their hopes, who termed gods things made by human hands: Gold and silver, the product of art, and likenesses of beasts, or useless stone, the work of an ancient hand.
THe ignorant refuse the grace of GOd which would give them the light to know him rightly. On this account, they cannot be saved unless they make an Act of Faith and receive the sacraments. If they are saved, it is as Catholics.
But, we do not despair of those not reached; if one pagan REALLY desires to know the truth above the distortions of his own mind, we believe God will find a way to make this implicit and darkened desire Explicit in the Catholic faith, if even an angel himself had to descend and teach the faith to them. But they will ot be saved apart from the Catholic Faith.
Oh, and Father Feeney never taught Heresy: When he was rehabilitated, he was not required to repudiate a single thing he taught, but to merely profess one of the three creeds of the Church. He chose the Athanasian Creed which begins with:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly…and ends with …“This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he **cannot **be saved.”
Remember, broad is the way of destruction, and “Narrow is the gate and few who find it.”
I am sorry to say this, but the theologians and popes of the Church has taught that ignorance is a SIN. The Bible indicates as much, when it says that those who we owuld call “invincibly ignorant” are without excuse for knowing God, since his attributes can be seen in creation, and, since they do not seek to know the truth, they take what little truth they see and distort it into the worship of idols and nature. THIs is what scripture teaches in Both ROmans and the book of Wisdom:
Romans 1:18-23: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ***20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ***
SO we see here nature is sufficient to come to a knowledge of God that is significant enough to want to know more of him
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Because of their ingratitude towards what they did know, they had the light of God withdrawn from their minds.
And Wisdom 13:1-10
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from **the good things seen **did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; 2 But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. 3 Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. 4 Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. 5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. 6 But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.
“This is what everyone I have talked to says: THey were looking for GOd, God knows their hearts, don’t judge them!” It is a symptom of the infection of liberalism.
But what does scripture go on to say?
7 **For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. 8 But again, not even these are pardonable. 9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD? **10 But doomed are they, and in dead things are their hopes, who termed gods things made by human hands: Gold and silver, the product of art, and likenesses of beasts, or useless stone, the work of an ancient hand.
THe ignorant refuse the grace of GOd which would give them the light to know him rightly. On this account, they cannot be saved unless they make an Act of Faith and receive the sacraments. If they are saved, it is as Catholics.
But, we do not despair of those not reached; if one pagan REALLY desires to know the truth above the distortions of his own mind, we believe God will find a way to make this implicit and darkened desire Explicit in the Catholic faith, if even an angel himself had to descend and teach the faith to them. But they will ot be saved apart from the Catholic Faith.
Oh, and Father Feeney never taught Heresy: When he was rehabilitated, he was not required to repudiate a single thing he taught, but to merely profess one of the three creeds of the Church. He chose the Athanasian Creed which begins with:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly…and ends with …“This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he **cannot **be saved.”
P
Pug
Guest
Why do you say that a human being would be unaware that they are not in possession of one of the things for which they were made? Also, Adam and Eve were in communion with God, and had a share in divine life before the fall, and their inner selves were in harmony, so are you saying the children in the theoretical Limbo would be in communion with God and have inner harmony, etc?
S
Shin
Guest
Five Opinions on the Penalty of Original Sin [St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church]
’ . . Let us begin with those who die unbaptized in infancy, and bring with them no other guilt than that of original sin. There are five several opinions concerning the punishment [supplicio] of such infants, ranging gradually from the utmost mildness to the utmost severity.
1.- The first opinion was that of those who dared to promise the Kingdom of Heaven to unbaptized children, even though they admitted them to be conceived and born in original sin. So held a certain Vincentius, whom St. Augustine refutes. . . Zwingli, in our age, fell into the same error . . . and this error, so far as concerneth the children of the faithful, is followed by many sectaries, as Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Calvin, whom I have refuted in my book on Baptism, chapter IV.
Of these aforesaid opinions, the first and second must be judged not only false but even heretical; as against them we must hold, by the Catholic faith, that infants dying unbaptized are absolutely condemned, and shall for ever lack not only heavenly but even natural happiness. And here it seems that we should note, by way of preface, that our own pity for dead infants doth avail them nought; nor, again, do we in any way harm them by the severity of our opinion; on the other hand,** it is great harm to ourselves if, through a useless pity for the dead, we defend pertinaciously any opinion which is against Scripture or the Church;** wherefore we must not here follow a certain human affection whereby many are commonly moved; but rather we should consult and follow the verdict of Scripture, the Councils, and the Fathers.’
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
[Please note I cannot guarantee the accuracy of this translation, as it was by an anti-Catholic]
’ . . Let us begin with those who die unbaptized in infancy, and bring with them no other guilt than that of original sin. There are five several opinions concerning the punishment [supplicio] of such infants, ranging gradually from the utmost mildness to the utmost severity.
1.- The first opinion was that of those who dared to promise the Kingdom of Heaven to unbaptized children, even though they admitted them to be conceived and born in original sin. So held a certain Vincentius, whom St. Augustine refutes. . . Zwingli, in our age, fell into the same error . . . and this error, so far as concerneth the children of the faithful, is followed by many sectaries, as Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Calvin, whom I have refuted in my book on Baptism, chapter IV.
- The next is indeed rather less liberal, yet very mild. It is that of those who, though excluding unbaptized infants from the Kingdom of Heaven, and from the blessed life promised to the saints, yet did grant them eternal life, and a natural happiness without any uneasiness or pain outside the Kingdom of Heaven, and far away from the prison of the damned; that is, midway between hell and heaven; which place can scarcely be imagined elsewhere than this terrestrial globe. St. Augustine, in chapter 85 of his book Of Heresies, teacheth that the Pelagians of old held this opinion: “For,” saith Augustine, “even to the unbaptized they promise a sort of life of their own, outside the Kingdom of God yet happy and everlasting.” . . . Thus the Pelagians promised to unbaptized infants not everlasting life in its simple sense [of Heaven] but, as Augustine saith, “a sort of everlasting life of their own.” The nearest approach to this error seems to have been made [among Catholics] by Ambrosius Catharinus in his book Of the State of Children that die unbaptized, by Albertus Pighius in his first Controversy, and by Jerome Savonarola in his Triumph of the Cross. For these teach that unbaptized infants, after the Last Judgment, shall be happy with a natural happiness [beatos natiirali beatitudine], and that they will live in perpetual felicity in a sort of Earthly Paradise.
- **The fourth, yet more severe, doth indeed free the children from the torment of fire, and from that worm of Mark ix, 44, **“their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” which is properly called the penalty of sense, but it doth not free them from that inward pain which followeth from the loss of the blessedness of eternal felicity. This is the teaching of Peter Lombard {Sentences, Bk. II, dist. 33) and he is followed by some others, as enumerated by St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Gregory of Rimini, and others in their commentaries on that passage.
- The fifth and extremest is the opinion of those who hold that infants, by reason of original sin, are tormented for ever in hell both by poena damni and by poena sensus; that is the opinion to which Gregory of Rimini openly inclines in his comment on Sentences, II, 33, and John Driedo in his Grace and Free Will, Bk. I, tr. iii, c. 2.’
Of these aforesaid opinions, the first and second must be judged not only false but even heretical; as against them we must hold, by the Catholic faith, that infants dying unbaptized are absolutely condemned, and shall for ever lack not only heavenly but even natural happiness. And here it seems that we should note, by way of preface, that our own pity for dead infants doth avail them nought; nor, again, do we in any way harm them by the severity of our opinion; on the other hand,** it is great harm to ourselves if, through a useless pity for the dead, we defend pertinaciously any opinion which is against Scripture or the Church;** wherefore we must not here follow a certain human affection whereby many are commonly moved; but rather we should consult and follow the verdict of Scripture, the Councils, and the Fathers.’
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
[Please note I cannot guarantee the accuracy of this translation, as it was by an anti-Catholic]
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Then why on earth would you quote it here?
Someone who is “anti-Catholic” would obviously (at least IMHO) put a spin on their translation to suit their agenda, whatever it may be.
As far as Limbo goes, I cannot believe in anything created by man to put God into a box.
Yes, there are normative means of salvation- the Sacraments,
however, the one thing that I think is all too often forgotten is that-
WITH GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE!!
S
Shin
Guest
*A few further excerpts continued from the above… .
*
‘The [ecumenical] Council of Florence, in its last session, in the decree Illorum, saith that souls which die in actual mortal sin, or merely in original sin, go down forthwith to hell, but are destined to be punished with unequal pains [mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas]. The [ecumenical] Council of Trent, in its fifth session, in agreement with earlier councils, taught in plain terms that unbaptized infants do not come to eternal life.’ (1)
‘St. Gregory saith in his Moralia (lib. IX, c. 16): “Some are taken from the light of day before they are able to produce good or evil deserts in active life. These, because the Sacraments of Salvation do not free them from original sin, and because they have wrought nothing of their own here on earth, come there also to perpetual torment” [ad tormenta perpetuo]. And again “those indeed receive perpetual torments who of their own will have wrought no sin.”’
‘St. Anselm saith (De Conceptu Virginali, c. 27) “If original sin be sin at all, then all men born therein, if they cast it not off, must be damned.” And St. Bernard, in his 191st Letter, to Pope Innocent II, “Infants, if not baptized, are lost.”’
’For who but a manifest heretic will deny that infants dying in sin will never be regenerated through Christ, nor ever at any time transferred to this Kingdom? Doth not St. Augustine plainly write, in plain words, that infants will be under the devil’s power even after the Last Judgement? for he saith: “This wound, inflicted by the devil upon the human race, doth constrain all that is born of man to be under the devil’s power.” . . . Therefore unbaptized infants, since they will always be captives under their prince the devil, must be called not happy but wretched.’
(I.) " Disertis verbis docent, parvulos sine Baptismo ad vitam aeternam non pervenire." The official Catechism of the Council of Trent, as noted above, is still more explicit : " Nothing is more necessary than that the faithful should be taught how our Lord prescribed the law of baptism to all human beings [omnibus hominibus]; so that, unless they be born again unto God by the grace of baptism, they are begotten by their parents, (whether these be faithful or unbelievers), to eternal wretchedness and ruin; Pars. 11, c. ii, § 31.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
… Perhaps a little more than even you might have asked for, eh Gregory? You can see the acceptable opinions are on a side surprising to the world.
As you can see the clear method here is not creating doctrine based on human affections and emotions, but sticking to what is given from authorities and Revelation. In other words, how you feel doesn’t count, what is true counts.
A different methodology than one based on popular opinion and emotion.
The simple truth is children are not born in sanctifying grace.
We can see how Adam and Eve’s decisions had terrible consequences for their children in more ways than one.
*
‘The [ecumenical] Council of Florence, in its last session, in the decree Illorum, saith that souls which die in actual mortal sin, or merely in original sin, go down forthwith to hell, but are destined to be punished with unequal pains [mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas]. The [ecumenical] Council of Trent, in its fifth session, in agreement with earlier councils, taught in plain terms that unbaptized infants do not come to eternal life.’ (1)
‘St. Gregory saith in his Moralia (lib. IX, c. 16): “Some are taken from the light of day before they are able to produce good or evil deserts in active life. These, because the Sacraments of Salvation do not free them from original sin, and because they have wrought nothing of their own here on earth, come there also to perpetual torment” [ad tormenta perpetuo]. And again “those indeed receive perpetual torments who of their own will have wrought no sin.”’
‘St. Anselm saith (De Conceptu Virginali, c. 27) “If original sin be sin at all, then all men born therein, if they cast it not off, must be damned.” And St. Bernard, in his 191st Letter, to Pope Innocent II, “Infants, if not baptized, are lost.”’
’For who but a manifest heretic will deny that infants dying in sin will never be regenerated through Christ, nor ever at any time transferred to this Kingdom? Doth not St. Augustine plainly write, in plain words, that infants will be under the devil’s power even after the Last Judgement? for he saith: “This wound, inflicted by the devil upon the human race, doth constrain all that is born of man to be under the devil’s power.” . . . Therefore unbaptized infants, since they will always be captives under their prince the devil, must be called not happy but wretched.’
(I.) " Disertis verbis docent, parvulos sine Baptismo ad vitam aeternam non pervenire." The official Catechism of the Council of Trent, as noted above, is still more explicit : " Nothing is more necessary than that the faithful should be taught how our Lord prescribed the law of baptism to all human beings [omnibus hominibus]; so that, unless they be born again unto God by the grace of baptism, they are begotten by their parents, (whether these be faithful or unbelievers), to eternal wretchedness and ruin; Pars. 11, c. ii, § 31.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
… Perhaps a little more than even you might have asked for, eh Gregory? You can see the acceptable opinions are on a side surprising to the world.
As you can see the clear method here is not creating doctrine based on human affections and emotions, but sticking to what is given from authorities and Revelation. In other words, how you feel doesn’t count, what is true counts.
A different methodology than one based on popular opinion and emotion.
The simple truth is children are not born in sanctifying grace.
We can see how Adam and Eve’s decisions had terrible consequences for their children in more ways than one.
S
Shin
Guest
No, actually, I have no particular reason to suspect him in this case at the moment, especially since he was doing this to an audience that was critical in that regard, was a public figure, and someone who when he made mistakes in regards to his apologetics vs. Catholics quoting source material admitted his mistakes at least he did in the same volume I quoted this from.Then why on earth would you quote it here?
Someone who is “anti-Catholic” would obviously (at least IMHO) put a spin on their translation to suit their agenda, whatever it may be.
As far as Limbo goes, I cannot believe in anything created by man to put God into a box.
Yes, there are normative means of salvation- the Sacraments,
however, the one thing that I think is all too often forgotten is that-
WITH GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE!!
Also the plain sense of the words does not meet with anything I am unfamiliar with or seem at all twisted. That said, I felt a disclaimer necessary.
[addendum]
If I had a better source I would use it, definitely, but the work itself is useful and pertinent enough I felt it worthwhile. Some public domain translations of Catholic writings have been done by Protestants, and are not available otherwise, sadly.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
YOu don’t understand, oneofthewomen, I am not taling about limbo right here: Limbo is speculation about what unbaptized Children DO experience: ON this, the church’s theologians have opinions and pious doctrines, but no DOgma.
What is not speculation is what thy do NOT experience: THey do not experience the Beatific Vision.
Do you think those that die in original sin deserve heaven?
Also, is God bound to uphold his decrees? Is a king bound to enforce the decreed he enacts and live by them?
What is not speculation is what thy do NOT experience: THey do not experience the Beatific Vision.
Do you think those that die in original sin deserve heaven?
Also, is God bound to uphold his decrees? Is a king bound to enforce the decreed he enacts and live by them?
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
The king is the king, and much like the Pope, if he is the “law giver” he can also dispense with that law. The king, and the Pope, however are both human, not God!
As Jesus said to Peter, “You are not thinking as God does, but as*** MEN ***do.”
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Oneofthewomen:
DO you submit with your whole heart to all the dogmas of the faith, which is necessary for our salvation, even if you don’t fully understand them all?
You have to understand, the Church teaches that those born in original sin do not have a claim to heaven. THey have no right. THe sin of adam is their own sin, it is in them as though it were their own personal fault, and this seperates them from God. THis is the teaching of the church, DOGMATICALLY.
DO you submit with your whole heart to all the dogmas of the faith, which is necessary for our salvation, even if you don’t fully understand them all?
You have to understand, the Church teaches that those born in original sin do not have a claim to heaven. THey have no right. THe sin of adam is their own sin, it is in them as though it were their own personal fault, and this seperates them from God. THis is the teaching of the church, DOGMATICALLY.
S
Shin
Guest
Hmm, Oneofthewomen, overall you’re quite right to suspect any anti-Catholic sources. I share the sentiment. Well, enough apologies and disclaimer for having to use one. No doubt he does do some spin ultimately in some places, though whether here or not.
I’ll leave you two to go back to fighting your battle.
I’ll leave you two to go back to fighting your battle.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
It’s not really a fight, it’s just the teaching of the church. There’s nothing to fight against
You say I put God in a box: I say God wants things done in the way he has established. God cannot do just anything, He cannot lie, he cannot steal, he cannot tear down what he builds up, he cannot change his mind, he cannot choose a “better” way of doing things, because it implies he doesn’t think through his actions.
I say God wants everyone to be saved:
In the way he has established. And not otherwise.
You say I put God in a box: I say God wants things done in the way he has established. God cannot do just anything, He cannot lie, he cannot steal, he cannot tear down what he builds up, he cannot change his mind, he cannot choose a “better” way of doing things, because it implies he doesn’t think through his actions.
I say God wants everyone to be saved:
In the way he has established. And not otherwise.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
This is what I believe-(emphasis mine)
You can find the rest of my “rulebook” here, don’t really need anything else, excpet maybe my Bible!
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Again from the “rulebook” (emphasis mine)It’s not really a fight, it’s just the teaching of the church. There’s nothing to fight against
You say I put God in a box: I say God wants things done in the way he has established. God cannot do just anything, He cannot lie, he cannot steal, he cannot tear down what he builds up, he cannot change his mind, he cannot choose a “better” way of doing things, because it implies he doesn’t think through his actions.
I say God wants everyone to be saved:
In the way he has established. And not otherwise.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
That’s not what I asked you.
Do you submit with all your heart to all the dogmas of the church? Even the ones it is hard for you to understand?
You’re right by the way, the sacraments do not bind GOd.
He has willingly bound himself to them, for he cannot change.
Do you submit with all your heart to all the dogmas of the church? Even the ones it is hard for you to understand?
You’re right by the way, the sacraments do not bind GOd.
He has willingly bound himself to them, for he cannot change.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Yes, I believe in the dogmas that the church holds, even if I don’t completely understand them all!
Limbo is not dogma.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
I am not talking about limbo here just yet.
DO yo uohld this to be true then?
COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 5 canon 4.
If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. **For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. **
Remember, this last phrase is in the context of talking about INFANTS. Unless infants are baptized they do not go to heaven. THis is dogma here.
DO yo uohld this to be true then?
COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 5 canon 4.
If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. **For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. **
Remember, this last phrase is in the context of talking about INFANTS. Unless infants are baptized they do not go to heaven. THis is dogma here.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I do not hold it as true or untrue, I hold the position that it is not what the Catechism says NOW, and it is this that I am called to believe.
At least that was what I was told by my Pastor, who happens to have a Doctorate in Canon Law, and by my Bishop.
Are you saying that they gave me incorrect counsel?
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Hang on a second, you just said that you accept all the dogmas of the church. What I Just posted is dogma.
It is necessary for our salvation to hold all the dogmas of the church to be current, relevant, and true.
You are not free to espouse indifferentism, I acknowledge the CCC as valid.
There is no such thing as an out of date dogma, because truth is one.
Now, do you accept this doctrine as true, as given at the ecumenical council of florence:
“All those who die in mortal sin, or in original sin alone, descend to hell where they are punished but with different punishments.”
and
“There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”
These are two statements of faith given at an ecumenical council, making them infallible, and thus dogmatic.
I have two questions
1.Do you accept these as true?
2. What kind of people can die in original sin alone?
It is necessary for our salvation to hold all the dogmas of the church to be current, relevant, and true.
You are not free to espouse indifferentism, I acknowledge the CCC as valid.
There is no such thing as an out of date dogma, because truth is one.
Now, do you accept this doctrine as true, as given at the ecumenical council of florence:
“All those who die in mortal sin, or in original sin alone, descend to hell where they are punished but with different punishments.”
and
“There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”
These are two statements of faith given at an ecumenical council, making them infallible, and thus dogmatic.
I have two questions
1.Do you accept these as true?
2. What kind of people can die in original sin alone?
- Status