Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Todd The Trad on September 20, 2022, 08:02:42 PM
-
I was reading about Dante's Inferno and in the first circle of hell, Limbo, he puts unbaptised virtuous pagans. Limbo has traditionally been taught to be a place or state for unbaptised babies, but could Limbo include unbaptised adults? If so, under what conditions? If a pagan fell into mortal sin, would there be any way for the person to repent with perfect contrition without explicit faith in Christ? I think a further developed/studied concept of Limbo could potentially be helpful in today's world of everyone goes to heaven.
-
Unbaptized people beyond the age of reason who are capable of committing mortal sin would be in danger of hell and not reprieved by Limbo.
I would think an unbaptized adult that was severely developmentally disabled or any true innocent that was unable to commit sin would be a candidate for Limbo.
-
Given that Dante (who was no theological slouch) put adults there, sure, there's a possibility for virtuous heathens to attain Limbo. The Church has never definitively ruled against the possibility, but, as josefa mentions, it would truly be a feat for them not to commit at least one mortal sin in their life.
My cousin was mentally disabled and died outside of the Church at 30, and I'm certain he's in Limbo or, God-willing, in Heaven (if my relatives had him baptized, which I don't know for sure). So it's a definite possibility for mentally disabled adults to be placed in Limbo.
-
You do understand, don't you, that Dante locates Limbo as a part of Hell, its outer ring? Hell is total and eternal separation from God. The virtuous pagans of Dante's Limbo suffer no physical pain but are forever sighing in a state of spiritual emptiness that could only be fulfilled by God whom thry will never know.
-
Given that Dante (who was no theological slouch) put adults there, sure, there's a possibility for virtuous heathens to attain Limbo. The Church has never definitively ruled against the possibility, but, as josefa mentions, it would truly be a feat for them not to commit at least one mortal sin in their life.
My cousin was mentally disabled and died outside of the Church at 30, and I'm certain he's in Limbo or, God-willing, in Heaven (if my relatives had him baptized, which I don't know for sure). So it's a definite possibility for mentally disabled adults to be placed in Limbo.
Yes this ^^ Hopefully he was baptized and is now in heaven.
-
I was taught limbo was only used before the the resurrection and ascension and is now closed.
-
I was taught limbo was only used before the the resurrection and ascension and is now closed.
Wow! Where and by whom were you taught that?
-
I was taught limbo was only used before the the resurrection and ascension and is now closed.
I can't remember any sources now...
But I do remember reading from solid sources that there is a Catholic traditional passed down that hell has various layers (probably where Dante got his idea to write his book). The top layer of hell is a place where those go who were "just" in the sense that they never committed a mortal sin but who never received sanctifying grace. In this layer of hell there is no pain of body but only the pain of the absence of the presence of God.
In my mind I have assumed that this would be the place where not only unbaptized babies but any naturally virtuous pagan or protestant would go who hadn't become Catholic before his death.
-
I was taught limbo was only used before the the resurrection and ascension and is now closed.
Well, certainly that was true of the so-called "Limbo of the Fathers". We know that there still is a Limbo, however, as infants who die unbaptized go there.
-
We know that there still is a Limbo, however, as infants who die unbaptized go there.
How do we know that?
-
You do understand, don't you, that Dante locates Limbo as a part of Hell, its outer ring? Hell is total and eternal separation from God. The virtuous pagans of Dante's Limbo suffer no physical pain but are forever sighing in a state of spiritual emptiness that could only be fulfilled by God whom thry will never know.
Right, but the point is that Dante had no issues locating adults (infidels) in Limbo. Of course, St. Thomas rejected the notion that infants who die without Baptism experience even the pain of loss, but held that they experience perfect natural happiness without any emptiness whatsoever. I would disagree with Dante that such as these will "never know" God, since once they have passed on from this world, they will certainly know Him, with a natural knowledge, even if not in supernatural way, but then neither do the unbaptized infants there know God supernaturally.
-
How do we know that?
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."
...
[T]he great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order.
If you don't believe in Limbo, what happens to infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptism?
-
Well, certainly that was true of the so-called "Limbo of the Fathers". We know that there still is a Limbo, however, as infants who die unbaptized go there.
Yes, it is why abortion is evil. The babies never get a chance to be baptized and will not see God in Heaven.
-
Yes, it is why abortion is evil. The babies never get a chance to be baptized and will not see God in Heaven.
Wrong.
Abortion is evil because it is a sin against the fifth commandment.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=68788.msg846857#msg846857) 9/22/2022, 7:08:46 AM
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
If you don't believe in Limbo, what happens to infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptism?
I never said I don't believe in Limbo. What I said was:
"I was taught Limbo was only used before the resurrection and ascension and is now closed."
Doing a quick search, I found this explanation:
In theology, the word limbo, derived from the Latin limbus, meaning “hem” or “border,” is understood in two senses: First, limbo refers to the temporary place and state of rest of the souls of the just who had died and were awaiting the saving action of the Messiah. Once our Lord had offered Himself on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins, He “descended into Hell,” as we profess in the Apostles’ Creed, to reveal Himself and to take these souls to Heaven. (The word Hell here should not be confused with our present understanding as the place of eternal damnation; here Hell is the English translation for the word sheol, “the place of the dead,” with limbo being the particular waiting place for the just.) This understanding of limbo is denoted as limbus patrum.
The other understanding of limbo refers to the permanent place and state of the souls of those who have died without baptism and without mortal sin, particularly the souls of infants. These souls are denied eternal life in Heaven and the Beatific Vision due solely to the effects of Original Sin. This understanding of limbo is denoted as limbus infantium or limbus puerorum.
At the outset of this article, note that the Church has never officially defined the doctrine of limbo. Rather, limbo is a theological supposition that became a popular way of dealing with a teaching of our Lord regarding the necessity of baptism for eternal salvation and what happens to the souls of individuals who die without being baptized.
Jesus taught, “I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God’s kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). The Catechism consequently asserts, “The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. …The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit’” (#1257).
Given the Lord’s teaching, the problem comes to mind, “What happens to a baby who through no fault of his own is born with Original Sin and who dies without the benefit of baptism?” Several of the early Church Fathers addressed this issue. St. Gregory nαzιanzen (d. 389) posited, “It will happen, I believe, …that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. …For from that fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that he is worthy of being honored, any more that it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserve on that account to be punished” (Orations, XL, 23). Tertullian (d. 250) and St. Ambrose (d. 397) agreed that only those souls culpable of unrepented mortal sin would be damned to Hell. Given this line of thought, the idea of some intermediary place or limbo existed for these souls.
On the other hand, St. Augustine (d. 430) denied any notion of such an intermediary place or limbo. He believed that unbaptized children would be sent to Hell since they did not merit Heaven due to Original Sin and not to Purgatory since that period of purification eventually leads to Heaven. However, he conceded that their punishment would be the mildest of all (De peccatorum meritis, I, xxi).
Dissatisfied with St. Augustine’s harsh teaching, the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, including St. Anselm (d. 1099), Abelard, and Peter Lombard, revisited the issue. St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) laid the foundation for the “limbo” explanation. He emphasized that Original Sin was a sin of nature inherited from our parents rather than a sin freely committed. Since Hell was the place of eternal punishment for unrepentant mortal sinners who had rejected God and since the unbaptized could not enter Heaven, those unbaptized infants should be in another place, perhaps in a place and state of limbo. While he also believed that the loss of Heaven and the Beatific Vision was a far greater punishment than any sensible torments of Hell, Aquinas added that these souls do not have the knowledge of what they have missed. Essentially, Aquinas leaves them in a state of ignorant bliss. In all, Aquinas’ theological speculation was regarded as the best explanation for this problem.
The topic continued to be debated. In the later eighteenth century, the heretical group known as the Jansenists promoted St. Augustine’s position and rejected the idea of limbo. Responding to the declarations of a Jansenist meeting known as the Synod of Pistoia (1786), Pope Pius VI issued Auctorem Fidei (1794), a condemnation for teaching something “false, rash, and injurious to Catholic education” since they denied that there is a place “which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo for children.” Actually, this declaration is the only official Church docuмent containing the word limbo. Keep in mind that the Holy Father neither defined nor rejected the teaching of limbo. Therefore, theologians continued to investigate and to debate the matter.
In the 1940s, renewed interest arose in this area. Using the argument of baptism by desire, some theologians speculated that God in His mercy would look favorably upon the desire for salvation of the Church, the family, the unbaptized infant, and even of Himself, and welcome the unbaptized child to Heaven. Here again the Magisterium provided succinct guidance. Pope Pius XII asserted that “an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant, this way is not open” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84). Later in 1958, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) admonished, “The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature– a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible…” (Acta L, 114). Again, the Magisterium neither defined nor rejected the idea of limbo.
Although we do not hear of limbo much these days, the very truths surrounding the discussion stand.
The Catechism asserts: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261).
Therefore, while we hope and pray that God who is infinitely merciful would welcome into Heaven a child who dies without the benefit of Baptism, we must not neglect our duty to baptize– the only certain way for a child to attain salvation.
https://catholicstraightanswers.com/whatever-happened-to-limbo/
-
Wrong.
Abortion is evil because it is a sin against the fifth commandment.
That too. But the baby's soul is more important than its body.
-
I never said I don't believe in Limbo. What I said was:
"I was taught Limbo was only used before the resurrection and ascension and is now closed."
Doing a quick search, I found this explanation:
In theology, the word limbo, derived from the Latin limbus, meaning “hem” or “border,” is understood in two senses: First, limbo refers to the temporary place and state of rest of the souls of the just who had died and were awaiting the saving action of the Messiah. Once our Lord had offered Himself on the cross as the perfect sacrifice for our sins, He “descended into Hell,” as we profess in the Apostles’ Creed, to reveal Himself and to take these souls to Heaven. (The word Hell here should not be confused with our present understanding as the place of eternal damnation; here Hell is the English translation for the word sheol, “the place of the dead,” with limbo being the particular waiting place for the just.) This understanding of limbo is denoted as limbus patrum.
The other understanding of limbo refers to the permanent place and state of the souls of those who have died without baptism and without mortal sin, particularly the souls of infants. These souls are denied eternal life in Heaven and the Beatific Vision due solely to the effects of Original Sin. This understanding of limbo is denoted as limbus infantium or limbus puerorum.
At the outset of this article, note that the Church has never officially defined the doctrine of limbo. Rather, limbo is a theological supposition that became a popular way of dealing with a teaching of our Lord regarding the necessity of baptism for eternal salvation and what happens to the souls of individuals who die without being baptized.
Jesus taught, “I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God’s kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). The Catechism consequently asserts, “The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. …The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit’” (#1257).
Given the Lord’s teaching, the problem comes to mind, “What happens to a baby who through no fault of his own is born with Original Sin and who dies without the benefit of baptism?” Several of the early Church Fathers addressed this issue. St. Gregory nαzιanzen (d. 389) posited, “It will happen, I believe, …that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. …For from that fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that he is worthy of being honored, any more that it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserve on that account to be punished” (Orations, XL, 23). Tertullian (d. 250) and St. Ambrose (d. 397) agreed that only those souls culpable of unrepented mortal sin would be damned to Hell. Given this line of thought, the idea of some intermediary place or limbo existed for these souls.
On the other hand, St. Augustine (d. 430) denied any notion of such an intermediary place or limbo. He believed that unbaptized children would be sent to Hell since they did not merit Heaven due to Original Sin and not to Purgatory since that period of purification eventually leads to Heaven. However, he conceded that their punishment would be the mildest of all (De peccatorum meritis, I, xxi).
Dissatisfied with St. Augustine’s harsh teaching, the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, including St. Anselm (d. 1099), Abelard, and Peter Lombard, revisited the issue. St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) laid the foundation for the “limbo” explanation. He emphasized that Original Sin was a sin of nature inherited from our parents rather than a sin freely committed. Since Hell was the place of eternal punishment for unrepentant mortal sinners who had rejected God and since the unbaptized could not enter Heaven, those unbaptized infants should be in another place, perhaps in a place and state of limbo. While he also believed that the loss of Heaven and the Beatific Vision was a far greater punishment than any sensible torments of Hell, Aquinas added that these souls do not have the knowledge of what they have missed. Essentially, Aquinas leaves them in a state of ignorant bliss. In all, Aquinas’ theological speculation was regarded as the best explanation for this problem.
The topic continued to be debated. In the later eighteenth century, the heretical group known as the Jansenists promoted St. Augustine’s position and rejected the idea of limbo. Responding to the declarations of a Jansenist meeting known as the Synod of Pistoia (1786), Pope Pius VI issued Auctorem Fidei (1794), a condemnation for teaching something “false, rash, and injurious to Catholic education” since they denied that there is a place “which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo for children.” Actually, this declaration is the only official Church docuмent containing the word limbo. Keep in mind that the Holy Father neither defined nor rejected the teaching of limbo. Therefore, theologians continued to investigate and to debate the matter.
In the 1940s, renewed interest arose in this area. Using the argument of baptism by desire, some theologians speculated that God in His mercy would look favorably upon the desire for salvation of the Church, the family, the unbaptized infant, and even of Himself, and welcome the unbaptized child to Heaven. Here again the Magisterium provided succinct guidance. Pope Pius XII asserted that “an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant, this way is not open” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84). Later in 1958, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) admonished, “The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature– a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible…” (Acta L, 114). Again, the Magisterium neither defined nor rejected the idea of limbo.
Although we do not hear of limbo much these days, the very truths surrounding the discussion stand.
The Catechism asserts: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (#1261).
Therefore, while we hope and pray that God who is infinitely merciful would welcome into Heaven a child who dies without the benefit of Baptism, we must not neglect our duty to baptize– the only certain way for a child to attain salvation.
https://catholicstraightanswers.com/whatever-happened-to-limbo/
So, do you believe that unbaptized infants/pre-borns go to Heaven or Infant Limbo?
-
That too. But the baby's soul is more important than its body.
"That, too"?
You are absolutely mistaken in your logic.
Abortion is wrong because it violates the fifth commandment and has nothing to do with baptism.
-
"That, too"?
You are absolutely mistaken in your logic.
Abortion is wrong because it violates the fifth commandment and has nothing to do with baptism.
If unbaptized infants and preborns don't go to Heaven, how is my logic wrong?
-
So, do you believe that unbaptized infants/pre-borns go to Heaven or Infant Limbo?
"Infant limbo"? Is that another kind of Limbo?
This is where, I believe, many traditional Catholics get into trouble. It doesn't matter what we believe as much as what is.
-
I never said I don't believe in Limbo. What I said was:
"I was taught Limbo was only used before the resurrection and ascension and is now closed."
Oh, for crying out loud, I clearly meant that you do not believe in a Limbo that continues to exist today, a place where unbaptized infants go.
So, now that we've dispensed with the word games, what do you believe happens to unbaptized infants? If you reject Limbo, you have to say that they either end up in Heaven or in Hell. That's not acceptable to the vast majority of Catholic theologians for the reasons cited in that snipped from Catholic Encyclopedia.
-
"Infant limbo"? Is that another kind of Limbo?
This is where, I believe, many traditional Catholics get into trouble. It doesn't matter what we believe as much as what is.
:facepalm: Apparently you didn't read what you yourself posted above.
Have a good day epiphany.
-
what do you believe happens to unbaptized infants?
It doesn't matter what we believe as much as what is.
-
Oh, for crying out loud, I clearly meant that you do not believe in a Limbo that continues to exist today, a place where unbaptized infants go.
So, now that we've dispensed with the word games, what do you believe happens to unbaptized infants? If you reject Limbo, you have to say that they either end up in Heaven or in Hell. That's not acceptable to the vast majority of Catholic theologians for the reasons cited in that snipped from Catholic Encyclopedia.
Nope. It appears word games still abound.
-
"That, too"?
You are absolutely mistaken in your logic.
Abortion is wrong because it violates the fifth commandment and has nothing to do with baptism.
2V is not mistaken in her logic. Yes, the mother will be guilty of sinning against the 5th commandment, likely at least a few other commandments as well, but she still has the chance to repent before she dies and be saved. The focus is always on the child because the child being killed before being born has no hope for salvation at all, no chance whatsoever.
-
:facepalm: Apparently you didn't read what you yourself posted above.
Have a good day epiphany.
Read the article i posted again.
-
the child being killed before being born has no hope for salvation at all, no chance whatsoever.
The Church has never defined dogma on such.
-
The Church has never defined dogma on such.
Lame.
-
The Church has never defined dogma on such.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli
“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
That's pretty clear to me...
-
"That, too"?
You are absolutely mistaken in your logic.
Abortion is wrong because it violates the fifth commandment and has nothing to do with baptism.
Are you Catholic?
-
"Infant limbo"? Is that another kind of Limbo?
This is where, I believe, many traditional Catholics get into trouble. It doesn't matter what we believe as much as what is.
I had sent you a link from Catholic Encyclopedia explaining the entire matter. Did you simply ignore it? Every Catholic has heard the distinction between the "Limbo Patrum" (Limbo of the Fathers) ... which you rightly indicate ceased to exist after Our Lord's Resurrection, and the "Limbo Infantium" (Limbo of Infants), which continues on. Surely you can't be this ignorant of Catholicism to never have heard these two terms before ... or at least the concept. Every Catholic who has the least bit of catechesis has heard of the notion that infants who die unbaptized go to Limbo.
That last sentence again perplexes me. With the teaching authority of the Church, "what we believe" conforms to "what is". As the aforementioned article explains, theologians are nearly unanimous about the fact that unbaptized infants go to Limbo. So, do you claim to have some better information about "what is" than pretty much nearly every Catholic theologian since the time of St. Thomas?
-
It doesn't matter what we believe as much as what is.
:facepalm: so, do tell us, where do infants who die unbaptized go?
Nearly all Catholic theologians have concluded the existece of Limbo from two dogmatic truths ...
1) those who die in Original Sin cannot go to Heaven and enter the Beatific Vision
and
2) those who die without the guilty of actual sin will not suffer any "punishment" (as Original Sin is not a punishable offense)
So it necessarily follows that there's a place which is not Heaven and also not Hell, not in the sense of a Hell where people are punsihed ... although some hold that Limbo is actually part of Hell. Regardless of where the "place" actually is, the question is the STATE in which these souls spend eternity if they die without Original Sin and yet also without the guilty of actual sin.
-
The Church has never defined dogma on such.
Oh, the Church most certainly has ... as cited by another poster above. This is UNANIMOUS consensus of all Church Fathers from the beginning. Now, for a while theologians, following St Augustine, posited that infants who died unbaptized go to Hell, but theologians reconsidered this and, since the time of St. Thomas, it's nearly undisputed.
Nevertheless, despite historical controversy about the details of where they do actually go, it's been dogmatically defined and taught repeatedly that those who die in Original Sin alone cannot go to Heaven. In other words, it's dogmatically certain where they do NOT go, i.e. to Heaven.
-
Read the article i posted again.
That article is pure Modernist trash. YOU read the article from Catholic Encyclopedia.
If you deny that infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot go to Heaven and enter the Beatific Vision, you are a Pelagian heretic.
-
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli
“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
That's pretty clear to me...
Limbo is a part of Hell, so the belief of Limbo of the Innocents doesn't violate this
-
Limbo is a part of Hell, so the belief of Limbo of the Innocents doesn't violate this
I never said it did. I was merely providing the teaching of the Church on those poor souls who perish with the stain of original sin.
-
That article is pure Modernist trash. YOU read the article from Catholic Encyclopedia.
If you deny that infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot go to Heaven and enter the Beatific Vision, you are a Pelagian heretic.
Show me the dogma of the Church on Limbo.
I was taught and believe three forms of baptism. I also believe what I was taught about Limbo being closed after the resurrection and ascension. I also believe it is not something we need to worry about if we take care to baptize as soon as is possible.
Condemning anyone is above my pay grade.
I try to do the best I can and leave the rest to God.
-
I also believe what I was taught about Limbo being closed after the resurrection and ascension. I also believe it is not something we need to worry about if we take care to baptize as soon as is possible.
Condemning anyone is above my pay grade.
I try to do the best I can and leave the rest to God.
He's not condemning you, he's warning you that rejection of it is heresy. If you're claiming to be a Traditional Catholic, you have an obligation to know at least what the Church traditionally teaches on these matters before arguing about it.
Show me the dogma of the Church on Limbo.
Here's what the Church teaches. It primarily is against the Pelagian errors.
1526 26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,-false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. - Pope Pius VI, Denzinger, 13th ed. p. 378
I was taught and believe three forms of baptism.
That's just plain heretical.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. - Eph. 4:5
The Nicene-Constantinople Creed, 381, ex cathedra: “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”[2] (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn2)
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “Having read these holy phrases and finding ourselves in agreement (for ‘there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]), we have given glory to God who is the savior of all…”[3]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn3)
Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur Vehementer, April 13, 1053: “I believe that the one true Church is holy, Catholic and apostolic, in which is given one baptism and the true remission of all sins.”[4]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn4)
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “One is my dove, my perfect one… which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”[5]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn5)
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[6]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn6)
Pope Pius VI, Inscrutabile (# 8), Dec. 25, 1775: “… We exhort and advise you to be all of one mind and in harmony as you strive for the same object, just as the Church has one faith, one baptism, and one spirit.”[7]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn7)
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”[8]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn8)
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).”[9]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn9)
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.”[10]
(https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn10)
Pope Leo XIII, Graves de communi re (# 8), Jan. 18, 1901: “Hence the doctrine of the Apostle, who warns us that ‘We are one body and spirit called to the one hope in our vocation; one Lord, one faith and one baptism…”[11] (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/#_edn11)
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/only-one-baptism-eph-4-5/
-
Show me the dogma of the Church on Limbo.
I'll explain it to you again, since you missed it the first time, or first two times. There is no dogma about Limbo. But there is a dogma that those who die even in Original Sin alone cannot enter Heaven. It's also been dogmatically taught that the ONLY hope of infants is the Sacrament of Baptism.
So your only choices are Limbo (held by nearly all theologians) or Hell (mostly abandoned, except for one or two here or there).
-
Let's be careful not to fall into the trap of veering off into BOD now. ;)
-
Let's be careful not to fall into the trap of veering off into BOD now. ;)
(https://c.tenor.com/-sST3Ldn3JQAAAAd/he-started-it-blaming.gif)
-
Show me the dogma of the Church on Limbo.
I was taught and believe three forms of baptism. I also believe what I was taught about Limbo being closed after the resurrection and ascension. I also believe it is not something we need to worry about if we take care to baptize as soon as is possible.
Condemning anyone is above my pay grade.
I try to do the best I can and leave the rest to God.
Well, in the Creed we have ONE Baptism, credo in unum baptisma.
As for "what you were taught," you need to question who taught it to you. You obviously misunderstood Limbo being "closed". That's a reference to the Limbo of the Fathers. Maybe you can believe what was taught by St. Thomas, if you'd take a moment to read the link. Except that it's quite obvious that you "believe" what you WANT to believe.
And yet again you pull out the sanctimonious nonsense about "condemning [anyone]". Nobody's "condemning". We're discussing the criteria for salvation. When we say that no one who dies in a state of mortal sin can enter Heaven, that's a reference to a criterion for salvation and has nothing to do with "judgment".
Yet all this is circuмlocution for the fact that you don't want to accept that infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be saved, i.e. that you embrace Pelagianism.
-
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Why can't an infant, who has yet to be born, desire to be baptized?
-
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
This question and answer I think is the key to answering this thread properly.
We know that at the end of time there is only heaven and hell. We also know that those who have died without mortal sin on their souls don't have the normal suffering of hell but are deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Ergo... It stands to reason that there must be a place in hell where those go who have not committed a mortal sin and are innocent except that they never received sanctifying grace. They are kept from the presence of God but do not have to suffer as those do who lived terrible lives and committed mortal sins and deserve punishment.
-
Why can't an infant, who has yet to be born, desire to be baptized?
With this question, I am now convinced that you be trolling. Even Xavier and poche would never think to ask this question.
-
Why can't an infant, who has yet to be born, desire to be baptized?
Perhaps you can answer how an infant without the use of reason CAN desire to be baptized.
See, this is the kind absurdity to which BoD doctrine leads. It has been stretched and extedended so that anyone can be saved via this ridiculous "BoD" ... from infidels to atheists, and here (taking it to its ultimate extremes) even someone who is incapable of "desire". So perhaps even the "desire" is completely implicit.
BoD is an absolute joke.
-
BoD is an absolute joke heresy.
-
We know that at the end of time there is only heaven and hell. We also know that those who have died without mortal sin on their souls don't have the normal suffering of hell but are deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Ergo... It stands to reason that there must be a place in hell where those go who have not committed a mortal sin and are innocent except that they never received sanctifying grace. They are kept from the presence of God but do not have to suffer as those do who lived terrible lives and committed mortal sins and deserve punishment.
It's somewhat disputed whether Limbo is part of Hell proper or a different place, but other than that, this is absolutely correct. While Limbo has not been revealed per se, it's become accepted by the vast majority of theologians, and it does logically flow from the principles you cited.
1) DOGMA: one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the beatific vision with Original Sin alone.
2) (originally disputed but now nearly-universally agreed upon beginning with St. Thomas Aquinas) Those who have not committed actual sin are not punished for it. (Recall that not going to Heaven is not a punishment, as that is a free gift to which we are not naturally entitled.)
Between these two, it's near universal consensus that there is a place or a state like Limbo. Originally, St. Augustine held that those in category two could end up in Hell, suffering, but with a very mild suffering. This opinion persisted (in the West) for 700 years before being questioned and eventually rejected. Meanwhile, in the East, with the likes of St. Gregory nαzιanzen and others, they already held to a limbo scenario. In fact, St. Gregory rejected Baptism of Desire precisely on the grounds of this principle, that there deprivation of Heaven is no punishment.
-
It's somewhat disputed whether Limbo is part of Hell proper or a different place, but other than that, this is absolutely correct. While Limbo has not been revealed per se, it's become accepted by the vast majority of theologians, and it does logically flow from the principles you cited.
1) DOGMA: one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the beatific vision with Original Sin alone.
2) (originally disputed but now nearly-universally agreed upon beginning with St. Thomas Aquinas) Those who have not committed actual sin are not punished for it. (Recall that not going to Heaven is not a punishment, as that is a free gift to which we are not naturally entitled.)
Between these two, it's near universal consensus that there is a place or a state like Limbo. Originally, St. Augustine held that those in category two could end up in Hell, suffering, but with a very mild suffering. This opinion persisted (in the West) for 700 years before being questioned and eventually rejected. Meanwhile, in the East, with the likes of St. Gregory nαzιanzen and others, they already held to a limbo scenario. In fact, St. Gregory rejected Baptism of Desire precisely on the grounds of this principle, that there deprivation of Heaven is no punishment.
And then there was the teaching of this fellow, some who believe is "still" the pope:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-limbo/catholic-church-buries-limbo-after-centuries-idUSL2028721620070420
-
And then there was the teaching of this fellow, some who believe is "still" the pope:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-limbo/catholic-church-buries-limbo-after-centuries-idUSL2028721620070420
And it's not because they've reverted to the opinion of St. Augustine that they go to Hell and suffer there either. It's unabashed Pelagian heresy. I find it ironic that Bergoglio accused Traditional Catholics of being Pelagians. Of course, he clearly meant Jansenists and has no clue abou what Pelagianism is.
-
And then there was the teaching of this fellow, some who believe is "still" the pope:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-limbo/catholic-church-buries-limbo-after-centuries-idUSL2028721620070420
And this statement here comes from a place of extreme ignorance and disqualifies whoever wrote this from being competent to address the matter:
“People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian,” the docuмent said.
According to Catholic Limbo doctrine (from the time of St. Thomas on), these infants DO experience "eternal happiness" ... only a natural (vs. supernatural) happiness.
To claim that only personal sins (not Original Sin) exclude from Heaven is open Pelagian heresy.
-
Perhaps you can answer how an infant without the use of reason CAN desire to be baptized.
See, this is the kind absurdity to which BoD doctrine leads. It has been stretched and extedended so that anyone can be saved via this ridiculous "BoD" ... from infidels to atheists, and here (taking it to its ultimate extremes) even someone who is incapable of "desire". So perhaps even the "desire" is completely implicit.
BoD is an absolute joke.
No baby has the use of reason, born or unborn. It is the godparents who answer for the child. Why, then, can't the parents answer for an unborn child who dies with no ability to be baptized.
BoD is dogma.
Feenyism is heresy.
Church Teaching on Baptism of Desire:
- "The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)" St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
- "By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter, A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
- "baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent" St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual (15th century), Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning Baptism
- "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. 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
- “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law - "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
- "17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized - "The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. 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
- "The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John, iii), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John, xiv): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire
- "The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire
- "We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire
-
Epiphany=Troll
-
Epiphany=Troll
Because I follow the dogma of the Church, I presume...
It seems to me that the CI crowd has come down to feeney-ite sedes running the show.
-
No baby has the use of reason, born or unborn. It is the godparents who answer for the child. Why, then, can't the parents answer for an unborn child who dies with no ability to be baptized.
BoD is dogma.
Feenyism is heresy.
I agree with the second part, but the first part makes no sense. The godparents answer the questions of the priest in the baptism ceremony. But your next sentence makes no sense. You are saying that the child is not baptized, but also that the parents should similarly be able to answer for the child in the exact same sentence. What exactly is the question you think the parents are able to answer?
-
This thread wasn't about BOD until you brought it up epiphany. It has NOTHING to do with Infant Limbo. You're the one who turned it into a BOD/Feeneyite discussion [and unfortunately Matthew has moved it to the Ghetto because of that]. Meanwhile, you still think unbaptized infants and preborns go to Heaven.
You're nothing but a Modernist troll...
-
Because I follow the dogma of the Church, I presume...
It seems to me that the CI crowd has come down to feeney-ite sedes running the show.
Distraction. You don't have to be a Feeneyite to uphold the Church's dogma that infants who die without the Sacrament cannot be saved. That teaching is repeated over and over again in the Magisterium. Baptism of Desire works ex opere operantis (as per St. Alphonsus) and therefore cannot be operative in the case of someone who lacks the use of reason.
-
In the Baptismal Rite, the priest already asks the sponsors, who answer for the baby:
Priest: Do you wish to be baptized?
Sponsors: I Do
What do you suppose happens next?
If you guessed the baby actually gets baptized with water you'd be correct!
If you guessed that was good enough they all could leave immediately after answering, you'd also be correct? No.
-
This thread wasn't about BOD until you brought it up epiphany. It has NOTHING to do with Infant Limbo. You're the one who turned it into a BOD/Feeneyite discussion. Meanwhile, you still think unbaptized infants and preborns go to Heaven.
You're nothing but a Modernist troll...
Liar.
Not once did I say I think unbaptized infants and preborns go to Heaven. Not Heaven.
What I showed was that the Church teaches there is a possibility that the unborn can be baptized and go to heaven.
Three forms of baptism is dogma of the Church. Anything else is heresy.
-
This thread wasn't about BOD until you brought it up epiphany. It has NOTHING to do with Infant Limbo. You're the one who turned it into a BOD/Feeneyite discussion [and unfortunately Matthew has moved it to the Ghetto because of that]. Meanwhile, you still think unbaptized infants and preborns go to Heaven.
You're nothing but a Modernist troll...
It was actually Ladislaus who brought up infants in limbo.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/adults-in-limbo/msg846852/#msg846852
Feeneyism doesn't even belong "in the ghetto", because it is heresy plain and simple.
-
Liar.
Not once did I say I think unbaptized infants and preborns go to Heaven. Not Heaven.
What I showed was that the Church teaches there is a possibility that the unborn can be baptized and go to heaven.
Three forms of baptism is dogma of the Church. Anything else is heresy.
Nah, buddy, you're the heretic, a Pelagian. Elsewhere you've expressed your believe that non-Catholics (even infidels) can be saved. BoD cannot apply to infants due to the very nature of what it purports to be, an ex opere operantis act of the will that leads to justification. Your spouting off (falsely) about BoD being dogma is irrelevant and a distraction.
-
Liar.
Not once did I say I think unbaptized infants and preborns go to Heaven. Not Heaven.
What I showed was that the Church teaches there is a possibility that the unborn can be baptized and go to heaven.
Three forms of baptism is dogma of the Church. Anything else is heresy.
:laugh1: More word games.
Still a Modernist troll.
-
I agree with the second part, but the first part makes no sense. The godparents answer the questions of the priest in the baptism ceremony. But your next sentence makes no sense. You are saying that the child is not baptized, but also that the parents should similarly be able to answer for the child in the exact same sentence. What exactly is the question you think the parents are able to answer?
The parents would desire their child to be baptized, and would do so if they had the chance to do so.
-
It was actually Ladislaus who brought up infants in limbo.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/adults-in-limbo/msg846852/#msg846852
Feeneyism doesn't even belong "in the ghetto", because it is heresy plain and simple.
Reading comprehension is your friend. I said you brought up Baptism of Desire which has nothing to do with Infant Limbo.
-
It was actually Ladislaus who brought up infants in limbo.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/adults-in-limbo/msg846852/#msg846852
Feeneyism doesn't even belong "in the ghetto", because it is heresy plain and simple.
I'm 100% convinced you're a troll now.
-
:laugh1: More word games.
Still a Modernist troll.
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who can't tell the difference and between what someone says (which i didn't) and what the Church teaches (which i did).
Over and out.
-
Does Catholic Answers still have a forum? If so, I think that's where epiphany belongs.
-
The parents would desire their child to be baptized, and would do so if they had the chance to do so.
Garbage. BoD is ex opere operantis and cannot be applied vicariously. This is affirmed repeatedly by Church teaching which states, in various ways, that the Baptism of children cannot be delayed as the only remedy for them from Original Sin is the Sacrament of Baptism. This is clear even in the passage from the Catechism of Trent that is cited as being evidence of BoD. Otherwise, there's no particular danger in delaying the Sacrament as long as the parents intend to baptize the child. Finally, BoD requires not only some intention to receive the Sacrament but also an act of supernatural faith, perfect contrition, etc. It's only through the Sacrament that supernatural faith and charity can be (passively or ex opere operato) infused into the soul. Those who are the most ardent proponents of BoD here on CI will admit this.
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.
-
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who can't tell the difference and between what someone says (which i didn't) and what the Church teaches (which i did).
Over and out.
Buh bye. I hope for good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
-
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who can't tell the difference and between what someone says (which i didn't) and what the Church teaches (which i did).
Over and out.
No, the Church teaches no such thing. Even if we were to concede that there is a salvific Baptism of Desire, your extension of BoD to infants is illegitimate. So your appeal to this "dogma" of BoD and condemnation of Feeneyites as heretics (which I will not bother to address here) is illegitimate and just a distraction. Pro-BoD Traditional Catholics agree that it cannot apply those those who have not reached the age of reason.
-
No, the Church teaches no such thing. Even if we were to concede that there is a salvific Baptism of Desire, your extension of BoD to infants is illegitimate. So your appeal to this "dogma" of BoD and condemnation of Feeneyites as heretics (which I will not bother to address here) is illegitimate and just a distraction. Pro-BoD Traditional Catholics agree that it cannot apply those those who have not reached the age of reason.
This thread should not be in The Feeneyism Ghetto.
-
This thread should not be in The Feeneyism Ghetto.
There shouldn't even be a Feeneyism Ghetto because "Feeneyism" is not a thing.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=68788.msg847142#msg847142) 9/23/2022, 1:55:37 PM
Garbage. BoD is ex opere operantis and cannot be applied vicariously. This is affirmed repeatedly by Church teaching which states, in various ways, that the Baptism of children cannot be delayed as the only remedy for them from Original Sin is the Sacrament of Baptism. This is clear even in the passage from the Catechism of Trent that is cited as being evidence of BoD. Otherwise, there's no particular danger in delaying the Sacrament as long as the parents intend to baptize the child. Finally, BoD requires not only some intention to receive the Sacrament but also an act of supernatural faith, perfect contrition, etc. It's only through the Sacrament that supernatural faith and charity can be (passively or ex opere operato) infused into the soul. Those who are the most ardent proponents of BoD here on CI will admit this.
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
Garbage.
Church Teaching on Baptism of Desire:
- "The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)" St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
- "By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter, A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
- "baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent" St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual (15th century), Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning Baptism
- "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. 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
- “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239) 1917 Code of Canon Law - "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
- "17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized - "The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. 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
- "The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John, iii), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John, xiv): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire
- "The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire
- "We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
-
There shouldn't even be a Feeneyism Ghetto because "Feeneyism" is not a thing.
There shouldn't even be a Feeneyism Ghetto because "Feeneyism" is not a thing Catholic.
-
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Epiphany, this is the correct and Catholic teaching on infants who die without baptism.
What I showed was that the Church teaches there is a possibility that the unborn can be baptized and go to heaven.
This is really bizarre. You showed this? Where? I can't find it anywhere in this thread. Can you please point it out to me? And also show us where the Church teaches what you're claiming it teaches in this statement?
-
ooooh. Epiphany is baaaaaack.
And on a down-thumb rampage! :laugh1: :fryingpan:
(https://i.imgur.com/w270Rh0.png)
-
Quote from: Yeti (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=68788.msg847186#msg847186) 9/23/2022, 5:03:26 PM
Epiphany, this is the correct and Catholic teaching on infants who die without baptism.
This is really bizarre. You showed this? Where? I can't find it anywhere in this thread. Can you please point it out to me? And also show us where the Church teaches what you're claiming it teaches in this statement?
What i quoted says the Church teaches that persons not baptized cannot enter heaven.
Baptism of blood and of desire are dogma of the Church as legitimate forms of baptism.
We were created to know, love, and serve God, Our Lord. The unborn are no exception.
We do not know how the mind of an infant works, especially in relation to God, so it is very possible they can desire baptism.
Use of Limbo for the unborn, as stated in the catechism, is only a "common belief", not dogma of the Church.
Read the quotes again, especially these:
"baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent" St. Alphonsus Ligouri's Moral Theology Manual (15th century), Bk. 6, no. 95., Concerning 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
I hope this helps.
There is no question in my mind that Limbo is no longer used, that there are three forms of baptism, and that God gives every man (born or unborn) an opportunity to reach heaven.
-
Baptism of blood and of desire are dogma of the Church as legitimate forms of baptism.
No. They are not. None of the quotes you provided are dogmatic statements affirming this. The only one that may come close to fitting a universal teaching on faith and morals, which does not in itself affirm BoD or BoB, is that of Pope Pius IX given that it is from an encyclical.
See my previous post on the matter of there only being one [form of] baptism.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/adults-in-limbo/msg846956/#msg846956
-
It is clear Church teaching that infants without the Sacrament of Baptism can not go to Heaven. Nowhere does the Church teach or ever taught that infants [or preborn] can be baptized with BOD. Epiphany obstinately denies this. Epiphany is a manifest heretic. He should not be posting on a Traditional Catholic forum.
-
In a practical sense, if all unborn children who are murdered by abortion go to heaven with a level of certainty, maybe ALL children should be aborted, as your and my children have no assurance of heaven living life in this world; even after baptism .
In other words, abortion is a ticket to Heaven. We could have Heaven population parties with pregnant mothers aborting. Sweet.
Why even baptize? Why the sacrifice of Christ? Original sin can be mitigated or absolved in many ways......Incarnation not necessary.
-
In a practical sense, if all unborn children who are murdered by abortion go to heaven with a level of certainty, maybe ALL children should be aborted, as your and my children have no assurance of heaven living life in this world; even after baptism .
In other words, abortion is a ticket to Heaven. We could have Heaven population parties with pregnant mothers aborting. Sweet.
Why even baptize? Why the sacrifice of Christ? Original sin can be mitigated or absolved in many ways......Incarnation not necessary.
It's basically the same problem that St. Augustine addressed about ѕυιcιdє in De Civitate Dei
-
If the unbaptized no longer need heaven, then the holy conquistadors and missionary priests who brought the love of God to uncivilized, unChristianized worlds and sometimes paid for it with their lives, died for naught.
-
In a practical sense, if all unborn children who are murdered by abortion go to heaven with a level of certainty, maybe ALL children should be aborted, as your and my children have no assurance of heaven living life in this world; even after baptism .
In other words, abortion is a ticket to Heaven. We could have Heaven population parties with pregnant mothers aborting. Sweet.
Why even baptize? Why the sacrifice of Christ? Original sin can be mitigated or absolved in many ways......Incarnation not necessary.
Who said all unborn children who are aborted go to Heaven?
-
If the unbaptized no longer need heaven, then the holy conquistadors and missionary priests who brought the love of God to uncivilized, unChristianized worlds and sometimes paid for it with their lives, died for naught.
Right. Everyone in heaven must have been baptized, in one of three forms. But the Church teaches that baptism of desire is a possibility only when baptism of water is not possible.
-
It is clear Church teaching that infants without the Sacrament of Baptism can not go to Heaven. Nowhere does the Church teach or ever taught that infants [or preborn] can be baptized with BOD. Epiphany obstinately denies this. Epiphany is a manifest heretic. He should not be posting on a Traditional Catholic forum.
Agreed. He’s promoting Pelagian heresy. It’s the clear constant dogmatic teaching of the Church that infants have no hope of salvation if they do not receive the actual Sacrament of Baptism. BoD, such as it is claimed to be, is an ex opere operantis phenomenon that requires a perfect act of charity along with supernatural faith, and there is no other means by which such an act can be passively infused in the soul other than through the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Alphonsus, who believed in BoD, clearly taught this.
-
Right. Everyone in heaven must have been baptized, in one of three forms. But the Church teaches that baptism of desire is a possibility only when baptism of water is not possible.
Church teaches nothing of the sort. You’re imposing your own theories on the Magisterium. It’s also heresy to attribute “impossible” to God. “With God all thing are possible.”
-
Who said all unborn children who are aborted go to Heaven?
Why only some aborted babies then ? If somehow they had intellect and reason wouldn’t ALL unbaptised babies desire it? Since they never sinned naturally why would they not desire it?
just trying to hone the n on the theology, here
-
Why only some aborted babies then ? If somehow they had intellect and reason wouldn’t ALL unbaptised babies desire it? Since they never sinned naturally why would they not desire it?
just trying to hone the n on the theology, here
I have no idea why the unborn (not necessarily just aborted babies) wouldn't choose to be baptized, just as I have no idea why born persons choose not to be baptized.
But the Church dogma states that baptism of water, desire, and blood are possible for all persons.
-
The act of desire would necessitate intellect and reason . There is too much presumption here to actually take this out of the theorizing category.
-
The act of desire would necessitate intellect and reason . There is too much presumption here to actually take this out of the theorizing category.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
ooooh. Epiphany is baaaaaack.
And on a down-thumb rampage! :laugh1: :fryingpan:
Yeah, whatever happened to the new restrictions on downthumbing put in place by Matthew? This guy goes around serially downthumbing members here who have thousands of more posts and upthumbs than he has.
-
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.
-
Let me just pick one. Case closed.
Council of Florence:
There is no other way to come to the aid [of infants] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God
There are dozens of other such passages from the beginnings of the Church, and the Church has always condemned as grave sin the delay of the Sacrament of Baptisms for infants for this very reason. Even that passage from the Roman Catechism which is construed as arguing for Baptism of Desire states clearly that it cannot apply to infants, and thus Baptism cannot be delayed without grave sin.
Even this Modernist tripe from the Vatican admits that this was the universal Catholic teaching until it was "re-imagined" at Vatican II, but then Vatican II re-imagined lots of things.
https://tinyurl.com/mvs53cpy
Really, the only debate that went on was whether these infants ended up in Hell (with some form lf "mild" punishment) or, rather, had a perfect natural happiness without any punishment or affliction whatsoever. St. Augustine taught the former, but was almost completely abandone after St. Thomas taught the latter. There was a brief revival under St. Robert Bellarmine, who tried to come up with a reconciliation between the two, and then the Jansenists, whose rejection of Limbo as "Pelagianism" was condemned by the Church. But the position of St. Augustine has been almost universally abandoned after Bellarmine and Bossuet.
-
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.
-
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 "like" 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Quote from: DigitalLogos (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=68788.msg847300#msg847300) 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.
-
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.
Who is Matt Walsh?
-
Quote from: Yeti (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=68788.msg847321#msg847321) 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.
-
Who is Matt Walsh?
He is a conservative New Order political commentator.
-
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 :laugh1:), 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.
-
When have I ever said I have an "indult-mindset" and "fiercely defend the fake modern marriage annulments"?
I can't find the exact quote I'm thinking of now, but this (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/marriage-vows-and-domestic-abuse/msg836158/#msg836158) should suffice for now.
UPDATE: Ah, here we go (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/traditional-powers-of-the-priesthood-absent-in-novus-ordo-ordinations/msg835666/#msg835666).
-
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
Correct. Did you bother to actually read this? He's speaking of eternal "punishments". Infants in Limbo suffer no punishments. That's the the entire theological premise of Limbo.
-
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 :laugh1:), 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.
Yeti,
Off topic here, but only Rome has the authority to claim annulment of a marriage. There are 1917 grounds for annulment. Just because Rome considers both modern and 1917 grounds, does not make the 1917 grounds invalid.
Furthermore, it is above my pay grade to determine whether an annulment was granted under 1917 or modern code. Therefore, i have to accept all annulments as legit.
It is an unfortunate truth, and I suspect Miss Barnhardt believes the same.
-
Furthermore, it is above my pay grade to determine whether an annulment was granted under 1917 or modern code. Therefore, i have to accept all annulments as legit.
Okay, so you accept modern annulments as valid. Isn't that what I said in the beginning of this exchange, which you then denied? :facepalm:
And here you say exactly the opposite earlier in this thread:
epiphany:
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.
Shame on you, epiphany, for your constant lying around here.
-
Okay, so you accept modern annulments as valid. Isn't that what I said in the beginning of this exchange, which you then denied? :facepalm:
And here you say exactly the opposite earlier in this thread:
Shame on you, epiphany, for your constant lying around here.
No, I said I have to accept them because I have no authority to decide which are legit and which are not. I have never defended modern annulments. There is no deceit at all.
-
As for myself, I make a distinction ... between practice and principle. I'll treat those who have an NO annulment as if it was legit (given that I am not privy to the details) ... except that I might question it if prudence suggests an opportunity. I don't have any authority to impose my conscience on others. Of course, that doesn't stop me from holding in principle that the vast majority of NO annulments are bogus And yet, a friend told me something a number of years ago that gave me some pause to think. He mentioned that the vast majority of those who get married in the NO do not believe in the permanence of marriage (go in with the attitude of, "I'll give it a try, and if it does't work I can always get divorced." or else go into it deliberately planning on limiting children). That is probably true ... in which case they're just fornicators or adulterers (as the case may be). But the GROUNDS for NO to grant annulments are borderline absurd.
-
No, I said I have to accept them because I have no authority to decide which are legit and which are not. I have never defended modern annulments. There is no deceit at all.
I accept them also ... in practice. And yet you and I were arguing not about specific cases, but rather about the principles for legitimate annulments, and you were in fact promoting the bogus perspective of Conciliar annulments. Earlier, you were citing Conciliar-era docuмents about the salvation of infants who die without Baptism. It seems that you're perfectly happy with the Conciliar orientation ... it's right up your alley.
So, what is it that has you rejecting the Conciliar Church anyway? Or do you just like the Latin Mass?
-
He mentioned that the vast majority of those who get married in the NO do not believe in the permanence of marriage (go in with the attitude of, "I'll give it a try, and if it does't work I can always get divorced." or else go into it deliberately planning on limiting children). That is probably true ... in which case they're just fornicators or adulterers (as the case may be). But the GROUNDS for NO to grant annulments are borderline absurd.
Both of those scenarios are specifically mentioned by pre-Vatican II theologians as not invalidating a marriage. I'd have to look it up. For the former, I read that not knowing or even rejecting the concept of marriage lasting until death does not invalidate the consent as long as the person believes marriage is a somewhat permanent union.
The second idea really stumps me where it came from, but a lot of people in the new church seem to believe it, the conservatives, particularly. This is just a distortion of a somewhat related idea, that any restriction placed on the right for sex in marriage invalidates the matrimonial consent. Thus, if someone were to say, "I only give you the right to sex in this marriage if we are using contraception," that would invalidate the consent, but just to have the intention to use contraception -- even to intend not to have children at all, or to intend always to use contraception -- does not invalidate it unless the nature of the consent is distorted.
-
I can't find the exact quote I'm thinking of now, but this (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/marriage-vows-and-domestic-abuse/msg836158/#msg836158) should suffice for now.
UPDATE: Ah, here we go (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/traditional-powers-of-the-priesthood-absent-in-novus-ordo-ordinations/msg835666/#msg835666).
In your first link, epiphany incorrectly claims that "undisclosed abusive temper" is grounds for annulment under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. He seems to like to interpret Church teaching to fit his beliefs. Seems to be a pattern.
The question is does epiphany have a conciliar annulment?
-
Both of those scenarios are specifically mentioned by pre-Vatican II theologians as not invalidating a marriage. I'd have to look it up. For the former, I read that not knowing or even rejecting the concept of marriage lasting until death does not invalidate the consent as long as the person believes marriage is a somewhat permanent union.
The second idea really stumps me where it came from, but a lot of people in the new church seem to believe it, the conservatives, particularly. This is just a distortion of a somewhat related idea, that any restriction placed on the right for sex in marriage invalidates the matrimonial consent. Thus, if someone were to say, "I only give you the right to sex in this marriage if we are using contraception," that would invalidate the consent, but just to have the intention to use contraception -- even to intend not to have children at all, or to intend always to use contraception -- does not invalidate it unless the nature of the consent is distorted.
If you have citations, I’d like to see them, but I’ve heard these criteria even from Trad priests.
-
If you have citations, I’d like to see them, but I’ve heard these criteria even from Trad priests.
I get this from The Administration of the Sacraments, by Fr. Nicholas Halligan, OP. Imprimatur: 1962. A fantastic resource for any questions anyone might have about the sacraments; I really can't recommend this book highly enough.
For the first question, that the belief that marriage is dissoluble does not invalidate consent, here's what he says:
An error of mistake of law concerns the nature of essential object and properties of the matrimonial contract, as in the case of ignorance. Thus, a simple error regarding the unity or the indissolubility of the sacramental dignity of marriage, even though the motivating reason for entering into the contract, does not invalidate matrimonial consent. [...] To know a thing with all its properties and to will a thing differ; one can simply will a thing as it is in itself and not know very well its properties or be mistaken about them. Thus an error about the essential qualities of marriage does not necessarily invalidate it. The general intention to contract marriage as instituted by God prevails over the error. Although many consider marriage to be dissoluble and not sacramental, e.g., protestants, Jews, infidels, yet they normally will to contract marriage as it is. They probably would positively exclude these properties if they were later questioned about them, but they did not actually exclude them at the time consent was given.
I have attached a scan of the page. The part I quoted is about a third of the way down; I'm sorry I don't know how to highlight an image like that (can anyone help me with this?)
-
The issue of contraception is a little more complex, but here is the relevant part, from a couple of pages after the prior quote:
Matrimonial consent is valid only when the intention predominates to transfer (and not positively exclude) the perpetual and exclusive and continual right ot natural intercourse. A condition designed to exclude this transference perpetually or for a certain time or after a certain time (e.g. periodic continence or the non-use except for infertile days or the right only to onanistic relations) is contrary to the substance of marriage, vitiates the consent and invalidates the contract. If this right is transferred and the condition implies only the intention to abuse this transferred right, the contract is valid, as the sinful condition is not contrary to the substance of marriage.
If a restriction made on marital intercourse is absolute, without any limit of time, i.e., the marital right and obligation would be perpetually abused, the presumption (in the external forum) is that the right itself, i.e., the order to the object of the contract, is excluded and thus no true marital consent and valid contract exists. This is especially true if a mutual pact has been made acceding to this condition. If the condition is not absolute but limited to a certain time when this marital abuse is intended, the presumption is that true, (although sinful) consent has been given and the marriage is presumed valid. This latter presumption considers that the right to the use was given but the fulfillment restricted. If the restriction is one of perpetual non-use (and not abuse), this is also against the substance of marriage if it implies that the conjugal right is not exchanged. However, such a condition of non-use is less clearly a vitiation of marital consent as is the condition of abuse. It is, moreover, not authoritatively determined nor generally agreed upon whether a condition of perpetual non-use or abstinence is in itself opposed to the substance of marriage. The condition may not be permitted, but a marriage so contracted must be presumed to be valid.
So there's a bit more to this one, but the bottom line is that generally speaking such marriages must be presumed to be valid, as he sums up the whole thing.
-
There shouldn't even be a Feeneyism Ghetto because "Feeneyism" is not a thing.
I agree with this 100%