In the first of your examples, Adesto, the Church would say that the child goes to limbo and has a natural happiness, but cannot go to heaven.  With no act of the will towards the Catholic Church on the part of the embryo or its mother, who didn't know it existed, how could it possibly be saved?

In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice.  I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about.  St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.

In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice.  I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about.  St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.

This used to be my position as well, however, it is not an allowable opinion. Cajetan held to this opinion and Pope St Pius V removed it from his works as not agreeable with the Church's belief.

The rest of the article from the initial post on this blog:

Keenly aware that the Council of Trent and its Catechism are plainly not at all supportive of his denials of BOB and BOD, the next recourse is to assail the infallible status of the Council itself. Two separate recourses have been taken to try to weaken the true sense of what the Council of Trent says. One of them is to point out what the Council Fathers meant could be one thing, but what they actually wrote and promulgated is another, and that only the latter is protected by the Holy Ghost. While this point is (more or less) basically true, the fact remains that what the Fathers DID say is nevertheless damaging enough to the claims made in the Treatise. Of course what they didn't say or promulgate from the Council itself is even more damaging, but admittedly of a lesser tier of authority (though in many ways still often containing much that is also infallible). For the contents of the Council are the Supreme and Extraordinary Magisterium (ex Cathedra), but the further and more detailed beliefs of all the Council Fathers, though not of this category, are nevertheless expressions of the Ordinary Magisterium and can often therefore also entail a certain infallibility.

    The other attempt made in the Treatise to impeach the evidence of the Council of Trent is something far more serious. At this point the Treatise expounds a heresy even more serious than the mere denials of BOB and BOD. When attempting to address the rhetorical question as to why Trent isn't more clearly supportive of his doctrine (the real answer to which is because it is all too supportive to the contrary), the Treatise recounts the events at and following the Council of Constantinople in 381, in which the Council Fathers, in crafting their creed, neglected to mention that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, and how that eventually led to the falling away of practically the whole Eastern Church. So why did this happen? Here is the explanation as given by the Treatise:


So, did the Council of Constantinople err? Of course not. But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy? Absolutely. So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase? The answer is that there must be heresies. 1 Cor. 11:19: "For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you." God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires. God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople's omission of the phrase: and the Son.
    In other words, it's all God's fault that there are heresies; God willed there to be heresies! God deliberately kept His Church from being too clear just so people could be confused and fall into heresy by the hundreds of millions! If so blatantly impious a thought could actually be the truth, then all those teeming hundreds of millions so misled through God's deliberate design could not in justice be damned, or if damned, they would therefore be damned unjustly. As with all heresies, one heresy leads to another, and then to another, and so on until the whole of Christian Revelation comes to be denied. The fact of taking such a shocking step can only be recognized as an admission of defeat on the part of the author of the Treatise. "God strews all these misleading clues about all Creation just so as to test us," is the last refuge of someone whose claims have just been proven false by the facts.

In the first of your examples, Adesto, the Church would say that the child goes to limbo and has a natural happiness, but cannot go to heaven.  With no act of the will towards the Catholic Church on the part of the embryo or its mother, who didn't know it existed, how could it possibly be saved?

In the second, it is possible that the desire of the MOTHER to have the baby baptized will suffice.  I'm sure that in the last moments of her life that is exactly what she would have been thinking about.  St. Augustine talks about this, but I'll have to do a search to find the exact passage.

The Council of Constance would seem to teach that all infants who die without baptism will not go to Heaven:

Condemned Proposition: 6. Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecuм16.htm

The Council of Constance would seem to teach that all infants who die without baptism will not go to Heaven.

Very good.

Quote from: spouse of Jesus

BOD is not an americanist thing. It is as old as 5th century.

Agreed.  The modern heresy is that of implicit faith.  No one taught that prior to Saint Pope Pius IX, who, let's face it, allowed the heresy to spread.  He should have condemned it, but he did not.  The Syllabus of Errors was a good attempt, but it was still weak.  He should have defined it, once and for all.

Dont give CM any ideas, elsewise, Pius IX will enter the ever expanding list of anti-popes.....

May I put two questions to those who deny BOD, BOB and Limbo:

A good, devout Catholic couple conceive a child, but the woman suffers a miscarriage after three or four weeks (as can happen) and does not realize that she had been pregnant. The child clearly could not be baptised, although the parents would have had every intent of baptising their children under normal circuмstances. Does that little soul go to Hell, a place of punishment and fire, for all eternity?

Another scenario (true): St. Margaret Clitherow, a Catholic martyr during the Reformation, was executed through being crushed to death, even though she was carrying an unborn child. Impossible as it was for her to deny Christ in order to save her baby's life, are we to believe that her child, the child of a heroic Catholic martyr, went to Hell to be punished for all eternity because his or her mother died for the Faith?

CM would consign said children to Hell-so ad, to bad his response (since there is no BOB, child is not a blood martyr like say Peter.....tough s$&% in plain lingo on the child, per CM!)

Either one missing, no justification.  No justification, no heaven.  No heaven=hellfire.

So, in your mind it is a either/or proposition, like Prot thinking...no room for Limbo at all, just painful torturous fire???

Like I said your position was, sorry baby, go burn baby!!