The Feast of the Holy Innocents.
How do you explain that?
What is there to explain? The Holy Innocents were martyred before Christ established the law of baptism, and before it went into effect, the Great Commission.
Oh, interesting. I was not aware of this. Could you provide you source for this, I'd like to study it at length.
...damn evey innocent little baby to Hell... They deny God's love for souls.
There are no innocent little babies who are unbaptized Elizabeth. Or do you not believe in the dogmas of Holy Mother Church?
Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree on Original Sin, #4: "4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema."
Guess what Elizabeth? You deny the dogma of the inherited personal guilt of original sin. Please repent and convert.
Let us not get hasty. Most definitely, children would not be innocent of original sin, but they would be innocent of all other sin. Both Elizabeth and CM are somewhat correct. Now, as to the eternal resting place of their souls, such should be left to the discretion of our Lord. I would not be surprised if God, knowing the destiny of that child should he live, would condemn some, and save others. But, entirely speculation.
We should baptize as soon as possible, and where impossible, trust them to God.
In contrast however, no pope has ever explicitly stated that those, though invincibly ignorant of the Truth that is Catholicism, are condemned to hell.
I'm sorry, but Pope Eugene IV dogmatized the Athanasian Creed, which infallibly asserts that explicit belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, Second Coming, Resurrection, Salvation of the Just and Damnation of the wicked is necessary for salvation.
Explicit? The word explicit does not exist in that docuŠ¼ent whatsoever. It infallibly asserts...
"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic Faith.
Unless a person keeps this Faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."
Hence why it ties in so beautifully with Baptism of Desire. Any without full knowledge would not be held to this, though if it was made known to them, they would be then be responsible to act upon it.
Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth (John 9:41)...we can safely assume both Justin and Clement believed in Baptism of Desire...
You can assume, and deny the objective sense of dogmatic decrees by favouring the writings and speculations of holy men who would undeniably assent to the same dogmatic decrees if they had seen them. I will stick to the dogmatic decrees, which are truly and properly the Words of God, and reject anything the contradicts them.
The dogmatic decrees are meant to be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. If you interpret them in a way contrary to the constant understanding of the church, would it not be yourself in error?
This in no way means 'Everyone saved', as ultimately there must still be a response to the Lord's grace, but the possibility exists and we should ultimately pray that God's will be done with such individuals, and be our Lord's hands and feet in bringing to them the truth of Catholicism.
No. Catholics do not simply pray for people's salvation. They go out into the world and look for them and preach the Gospel unto them as well. But not people who think that water baptism is not the only way, these people are more likely to get lazy.
You must have missed the last part. :wink:
Topic: Fr. Stepanich on Outside of the Church There is No Salvation (Read 22466 times)