Not at all.  We do not know the intellect of the unborn, nor their relationship with God.  However, Church dogma states a possibility of three forms of baptism for all persons.  Remember, a person is a person no matter how small.

Where does Church dogma state that? Theologians state that. But the Church has never dogmatically said there were three forms of baptism, but one baptism.

You keep lying about some dogma regarding the "three forms of baptism".  If in fact you read Trent as teaching BoD, Trent positively precludes a BoB that does not reduce to BoD.

And now you're citing Dr. Seuss in lieu of Catholic theology?  Of course they are "persons", but they are persons bereft of the use of reason.

I could cite a veritable wall of text from the Catholic Magisterium that infants who die without actual reception of the Sacrament cannot be saved.

It does not pay to continue to interact with the manifest heretic troll. It only give him an audience.  He will dig his own grave....all in due time.

It does not pay to continue to interact with the manifest heretic troll. It only give him an audience.  He will dig his own grave....all in due time.

True.  He's really just talking to himself here, as even the most ardent proponents of BoD here would deny that it can apply to infants.  And there is no actual theology behind it.  It's just emotion theology.  I don't "llke" the fact that unbaptized infants cannot attain to the Beatific Vision, so I'll invent something that would make it possible.  St. Thomas clearly explained that the Beatific Vision (and this is echoed by the Greek Fathers who implied belief in Limbo from very early on) is not something human nature is capable of, and that there's no injustice in anyone not receiving it.  It is not required for perfect natural happiness either.

That sort of thinking is typically found in women.  I think this is why many people in the forums over the years thought I was male.

For the longest time I assumed Epiphany was a woman and I was really surprised to notice the little male marker under his name recently.  I did see a big Twitter debate where Matt Walsh passionately defended unbaptized infants going to Heaven, so males aren’t immune, I guess.

Quote from: DigitalLogos 9/24/2022, 12:47:25 PM
Where does Church dogma state that? Theologians state that. But the Church has never dogmatically said there were three forms of baptism, but one baptism.

Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." Encyclical On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863

A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church." Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism

See also the Baltimore catechism, which the Church uses to teach catechumens and children.

Quote from: Yeti 9/24/2022, 2:15:59 PM

I see this in a lot of questions, and it's disturbing every time. I've seen people make up the idea that aborted babies are martyrs because they are killed in sacrifice to Satan. I think it's also why most indult-mindset people such as epiphany fiercely defend the fake modern marriage annulments while generally rejecting the other modernist innovations as heretical. I think it's also the main motivation behind Bennyvacantism, as well as the acceptance of the modernist rite of ordination/consecration. I suspect it's behind the popularity of Fr. Ripperger as well, since it tickles people's vanity to be told they're being physically attacked by demons like the great saints such as the Cure of Ars, St. Anthony of the Desert, or even Padre Pio. In the new church it's why people accepted when their "priest" told them they could use contraception; they knew perfectly well that was wrong and did it because they wanted to, not because their priest told them.

It makes me pretty pessimistic about most people in the Novus Ordo church, since people believe what is comfortable to believe, not what is taught them by the Church. That's why most people went along with the changes, because they made them comfortable in their sins. It's also why I consider people in the new church, generally speaking, to be in bad faith about their religion and not to be Catholics.

When have I ever said I have an "indult-mindset" and "fiercely defend the fake modern marriage annulments"?

I have done neither. 

While i do believe the 1917 code regarding annulments, which all Catholics are obliged to believe, i have never "defended the fake modern marriage annulments", fiercely or otherwise.

Nor have i ever said I support the indult mass.

It is unfortunate you try to put words into my mouth.

When have I ever said I have an "indult-mindset" and "fiercely defend the fake modern marriage annulments"?

I have done neither. 

While i do believe the 1917 code regarding annulments, which all Catholics are obliged to believe, i have never "defended the fake modern marriage annulments", fiercely or otherwise.

Nor have i ever said I support the indult mass.

It is unfortunate you try to put words into my mouth.

Is this a joke? Epiphany, every time the subject of modern marriage annulments comes up, and anyone here says the new annulments granted since Vatican II on grounds (such as immaturity) that were never considered grounds before Vatican II must be rejected and people must not consider them valid, you always jump in and start defending the validity of those same fake annulments, and claim that everyone must accept them.

I wasn't necessarily including you in my statement about indult-attendees. You seem to be pretty cagey about where you go to church, anyway, so I'll leave you out of this, but I was using the term as a clumsy way to speak collectively about the conservative wing of the Novus Ordo Church, which mostly comprises people who go to the indult. It is a disturbing trend to me to see that, while nearly all of them reject the new mass and sometimes the fake new sacraments and the errors of Vatican II, at the same time nearly all of them accept the modernist marriage annulments that are even more obviously absurd and anti-traditional than the Novus Ordo mass, and more clearly against everything the Church stood for before Vatican II.

To take a high-profile example I've seen recently, I tend to follow Ann Barnhardt's blog, who I believe goes to the indult. She herself has condemned the modern "bullshit marriage annulments" (she has her own set of technical theological terms ), she had a piece on her blog the other day about an FSSP priest who left the FSSP, to make a long story short, basically in protest over their closure of churches during the scamdemic and something else I can't recall now. My point is that Ann praised this man for being heterosɛҳuąƖ, and as proof of that she cited the fact that he has been married in the past and that marriage is now annulled, allowing him to become a priest. I thought this very strange, and looked around on the internet, and it turned out this man was married even had his marriage blessed by John Paul II himself (!!), and that same marriage is later annulled. How the "pope" can't perform a marriage correctly is a question I'll leave for others, but the point is that Ann liked this guy for standing up to the scamdemic, so she completely ignored the horrific scandal of him leaving his marriage through what she herself would call a "bullshit annulment" and ended up becoming a priest later on (invalidly ordained, but still a scandal). She accepted the scandal of the annulment out of wishful thinking, because she liked something else this guy was doing.