T
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
There’s a lot wrong with thinking that all babies automatically go to heaven without the *sacrament *of Baptism, since this contradicts what the Vicar of Christ, Pope Pius XII, taught on October 29, 1951, when he said that baptism of desire is impossible for infants, and that they urgently need to receive the sacrament of Baptism to reach heaven. Don’t listen to me. Listen to Pope Pius XII.What in the world is wrong with the belief that an innocent baby goes straight to Heaven? You don’t like it because it means your work here on earth might not garner you the same results? The Lord said not to worry yourself with such things. Matthew 20:
12 ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’
13"But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14’Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.
15’Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’
16"So the last shall be first, and the first last."
The parable of the workers who all received a denarius is no argument against limbo, since limbo is a state of happiness. All those who are saved from what Our Lord calls the “fire” of hell are happy–either in heaven or in limbo. Consequently, in the sense that they are all happy (though in radically divergent ways), they all receive a denarius.
Keep and spread the Faith.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Poll closed.
T
Tom317
Guest
Jesus did not say baptism was needed for the “journey,” He said it was required for entrance into the kingdom. Jesus never qualified His command to baptize. We can hope that Jesus provides baptismal graces upon babies and children who die and have not been baptized, but we cannot “say” or even “imply” that Jesus will do that because Jesus never said He would.…Babies who are born need the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) to give them this faith and this grace for their journies. Babies who are no longer here no longer need these graces.
Yes, there is a huge and critical inconsistency. Jesus said no-one enters the kingdom without baptism, He never said He will save those babies who are not baptized, and if we are going to say Jesus will do that (or even if we imply Jesus will do that), then we can just as easily say that Jesus will do any number of things with souls after this life, yet we are not free to say those things because it was not revealed to us.There is no inconsistancy in saying unbaptized babies go straight to heaven (for the Lord himself said that we should all have faith like children and called them to Himself, despite His closest disciples turning the children away) and in saying those babies here on earth are in need of the sacramental grace that comes from baptism.
Jesus tied baptism to salvation in such an absolute way, that we simply cannot say or imply that baptism is not required for any soul. We can hope any given soul will be saved (non-Christians, unbaptized, etc.), yet our hope does not nessecarily equate to Jesus’ actions.
W
Woodstock
Guest
Tom,
Your position is not in line with the Catholic church which also believes in baptism by blood or desire, as well as the possibility for others to “unite” themselves to the church despite their not knowing about it. The Catholic church even acknowledges the salvation of people who reject the church because of an ingrained bias that keeps them from seeing the truth about it.
It was not very long ago that suicide victims were denied church funerals and everyone knew that the person was in hell for his choice. Today, the Catholic church teaches that mental and emotional illness mitigate their full knowledge and consent, which means they very well might be in heaven. It says we must leave these people to the mercy of God and pray for their souls.
OK–let me give it to you in western terms.
People who have not heard the Good News can reach salvation (according to the Catholic Church) by aligning themselves with the natural law.
People who die in what appears to not be a state of grace might have mitigating influence which did not allow the person to freely consent to the turning from God.
A baby in the womb or out of it who is incapable of understanding the Good News is living according to the natural law. Though he might die in what appears to be a lack of grace, mitigating circumstances about the child’s full consent and will bring into question any distancing from God. Therefore, according to this round-about argument that comes straight from the western church, this baby could very well have full salvation upon its death.
I prefer to simply say that we leave the child to the mercy of God.
It is obvious that you do not hold views in alignment with the very same church you quote, and that you desire the last word. I will let you have it.
Your position is not in line with the Catholic church which also believes in baptism by blood or desire, as well as the possibility for others to “unite” themselves to the church despite their not knowing about it. The Catholic church even acknowledges the salvation of people who reject the church because of an ingrained bias that keeps them from seeing the truth about it.
It was not very long ago that suicide victims were denied church funerals and everyone knew that the person was in hell for his choice. Today, the Catholic church teaches that mental and emotional illness mitigate their full knowledge and consent, which means they very well might be in heaven. It says we must leave these people to the mercy of God and pray for their souls.
OK–let me give it to you in western terms.
People who have not heard the Good News can reach salvation (according to the Catholic Church) by aligning themselves with the natural law.
People who die in what appears to not be a state of grace might have mitigating influence which did not allow the person to freely consent to the turning from God.
A baby in the womb or out of it who is incapable of understanding the Good News is living according to the natural law. Though he might die in what appears to be a lack of grace, mitigating circumstances about the child’s full consent and will bring into question any distancing from God. Therefore, according to this round-about argument that comes straight from the western church, this baby could very well have full salvation upon its death.
I prefer to simply say that we leave the child to the mercy of God.
It is obvious that you do not hold views in alignment with the very same church you quote, and that you desire the last word. I will let you have it.
T
Tom317
Guest
I have conceded several times that the Church teaches baptism of desire and blood, yet is I am not mistaken those types of baptism are seen as possible, not infallible proclamations. And, to the point about people who reject the Church or do not know about it, those statements are also not infallibly declared as far as I know. If I am wrong, please prove those statements are infallibly declared.Tom,
Your position is not in line with the Catholic church which also believes in baptism by blood or desire, as well as the possibility for others to “unite” themselves to the church despite their not knowing about it. The Catholic church even acknowledges the salvation of people who reject the church because of an ingrained bias that keeps them from seeing the truth about it.
See my previous response above.It was not very long ago that suicide victims were denied church funerals and everyone knew that the person was in hell for his choice. Today, the Catholic church teaches that mental and emotional illness mitigate their full knowledge and consent, which means they very well might be in heaven. It says we must leave these people to the mercy of God and pray for their souls.
Nope, they “”“might”"" reach salvation, God might choose to save them. The Church never declares they will be saved. This is precisely my main point, many people think the Church has declared all sorts of points abut salvation and that the Church has declared basically everyone is going to be saved by God even though they were never in His Church. That is flat wrong, the Church merely leaves the possibility of salvation open for those people because it “hopes” in God’s mercy. The Church cannot say with any certainty that any non-Catholic will be saved and the Church says that.People who have not heard the Good News can reach salvation (according to the Catholic Church) by aligning themselves with the natural law.
This sort of thought process is what leads to an attitude of everyone will be saved, and we know that is not true. The Church, through love, can hope for salvation for those people, yet it cannot and will not say they will be saved…it is the same situation for the rest of your examples, including babies and unborn babies. The Church simply cannot say or even imply they will be saved.People who die in what appears to not be a state of grace might have mitigating influence which did not allow the person to freely consent to the turning from God.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
Of course we leave the unbaptized child to the mercy of God. Limbo is a striking manifestation of that mercy, because the unending natural happiness known as limbo is a pure gift of God’s generosity.Tom,
Your position is not in line with the Catholic church which also believes in baptism by blood or desire, as well as the possibility for others to “unite” themselves to the church despite their not knowing about it. The Catholic church even acknowledges the salvation of people who reject the church because of an ingrained bias that keeps them from seeing the truth about it.
It was not very long ago that suicide victims were denied church funerals and everyone knew that the person was in hell for his choice. Today, the Catholic church teaches that mental and emotional illness mitigate their full knowledge and consent, which means they very well might be in heaven. It says we must leave these people to the mercy of God and pray for their souls.
OK–let me give it to you in western terms.
People who have not heard the Good News can reach salvation (according to the Catholic Church) by aligning themselves with the natural law.
People who die in what appears to not be a state of grace might have mitigating influence which did not allow the person to freely consent to the turning from God.
A baby in the womb or out of it who is incapable of understanding the Good News is living according to the natural law. Though he might die in what appears to be a lack of grace, mitigating circumstances about the child’s full consent and will bring into question any distancing from God. Therefore, according to this round-about argument that comes straight from the western church, this baby could very well have full salvation upon its death.
I prefer to simply say that we leave the child to the mercy of God.
It is obvious that you do not hold views in alignment with the very same church you quote, and that you desire the last word. I will let you have it.
Limbo is *not *a total distancing from God. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, even though it represents a penalty for original sin and falls far short of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision, limbo is a state of being united to God by natural knowledge and love. This state of happy union with God is hardly anything to be trivialized.
When Pope Pius XII taught on October 29, 1951, that baptism of desire is impossible for infants, he was directing his teaching to Catholics in the East as well as to those in the West.
Please listen to the Pontiff’s own words:
“If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death; without it salvation and supernatural happiness–the beatific vision of God–are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”
Who among the Catholics here denies that Pius XII taught the above? Who here denies the truth of Pius XII’s teaching?
Here is a link for Pius XII’s allocution:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
Anyone who accepts the teaching of Pius XII is, on this point, in alignment with the Catholic Church.
Keep and spread the Faith.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.