Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences (Read 97794 times)

Freind · « **Reply #140 on:** December 19, 2025, 06:55:20 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 06:42:14 PM

No, I asked you a question first

I asked you first, "So, you are saying it was useless for the Church to officially allow a requiem for a catechumen who died before baptism?"

Stubborn · « **Reply #141 on:** December 20, 2025, 04:44:28 AM »

Quote from: Freind on December 19, 2025, 05:56:43 PM

You can't even answer "yes" that "the Church" gave us the New Testament. What do you know, then?

You can't even say when "the Church" does something. Go ahead if you think you can, give us a list of examples.

Well you asked a very puerile question in your effort to distract from answering anything at all, I mean, it's like asking if wind blows.

Look, if you would like to reply with a legitimate rebuttal, I would like it if you would reply with a legitimate reason stating what makes this wrong......

A BOD Is salvation by faith alone. By design, a BOD is completely devoid of Divine Providence and is wholly dependent upon one (who is not a member of the Church) saving themself. The fact is, a BOD cannot work at all if Divine Providence is involved. Therefore, Divine Providence must be completely left out of the formula or a BOD fails.

Freind · « **Reply #142 on:** December 20, 2025, 06:52:18 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 19, 2025, 06:42:14 PM

No, I asked you a question first

I doubt if I went back in the thread and proved chronologically that I asked first that it would do any good. So, I will just answer you.

The Church in the earliest years was very strict on imposing penances. Now they give, for instance, 3 prayers to say after confession. This isn't a contradiction, nor a condemnation of what went before. The same with the younger age for which receiving First Holy Communion became allowed. The same with rules for fasting. The same with dispensations to marry a non-Catholic, etc. etc. There was always strict rules against receiving the sacraments from schismatics, but times came up often that in danger of death epikeia allowed it. Such a circuмstance became more and more frequent and then the Church decided to ease the angst and explicitly allow it by mention in canon law.

There is no salvation outside the true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. That is solid dogma. Fallen human nature tends to play games with rules, and the Church has been consistent about rules for funerals. They held it out that if Catholics want the benefits for their eternal needs at their funerals, they must be a Catholic in good standing, and consciously be so. So, the rules just rolled along pretty much the same.

However, the bombshell of Protestantism hit laity of the Church in the 16th century and so many generations grew up brainwashed and biased with heresies. Whereas before when Protestants snapped out of their heresies, the road to conversion was quicker. Eventually the need was there for safety to extend the time taken on catechumens, to make sure their baggage was taken care of before baptism.

Such is life, there were cases where catechumens accidentally suddenly died before baptism. This circuмstance hit people hard because of the rules of funerals and applying the Mass. The angst was there and priests had give comfort by bringing up Trent about sudden death and baptism in voto. Eventually, with population explosion, rapid travel and publications and large amounts of conversions to Catholicism, the Church eased that angst by explicitly mentioning it in canon law with the practical aspect that catechumens accidentally suddenly dying would be automatically given the prayers of the Church and funeral rites. Yes, it DOES entail necessarily the soul could be in purgatory without baptism by water. The lack of this law before 1917 had nothing to do with a denial of Trent's baptism in voto.

WorldsAway · « **Reply #143 on:** December 20, 2025, 08:01:40 AM »

Ecclesiastical law is not infallible, that's my point. If you think the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect. If the prior practice was correct, than the 1917 Code is incorrect.

Ecclesiastical burial is to be given to Catechumens who die without baptism. That's the current law. A future pope could abrogate the current law, and enact a new law that would forbid ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized Catechumens..as was done in the past

Quote

A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism."

...

The reason of this regulation [forbidding Christian burial rites to unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) vol. 2

Freind · « **Reply #144 on:** December 20, 2025, 09:07:21 AM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on December 20, 2025, 08:01:40 AM

Ecclesiastical law is not infallible, that's my point. If you think the 1917 Code is correct, then the prior practice was incorrect. If the prior practice was correct, than the 1917 Code is incorrect.

Ecclesiastical burial is to be given to Catechumens who die without baptism. That's the current law. A future pope could abrogate the current law, and enact a new law that would forbid ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized Catechumens..as was done in the past

Yes, it is infallible. It is "the Church" that does it, and it cannot do anything against morals and faith to the whole Church. This is not "papal infallibility". It is the Church infallibility. St. Thomas says it is a BLASPHEMY to say THE CHURCH does anything harmful or even "useless". You willing to commit blasphemy?

I wonder whether you even read all I responded with. The examples I gave were all changes, all useful and good.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences (Read 97794 times)

Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Stubborn

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

WorldsAway

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences

Freind

Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences