Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: RandomFish on September 13, 2023, 07:25:27 PM
-
It seems that the Vatican II development is now complete.
First stage of the development was lex orandi lex credendi; a Mass could be offered for an unbaptized infant who died.
Second stage was Ratzinger’s International Theological Commission “Hope of Salvation” theology akin to Balthazar’s “Dare We Hope That All May Be Saved?”: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Third stage, Francis’ sacramental-ecclesial revolution of Baptism in numerous speeches, most notoriously - Let us consider, dear brothers and sisters, that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature; only the manner of being together with each of them changes, but nothing and no one can break this bond. “Father, let us think about those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: Are these also at home?”. Yes, these too, even the blasphemers, everyone. We are brothers. This is the communion of saints. The communion of saints holds together the community of believers on earth and in heaven -
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2022/docuмents/20220202-udienza-generale.html
And even worse:
"Who is more important in the Church: the religious sister or the ordinary person, the baptised, the unbaptised, the child, the bishop? They are all equal, we are equal,” Francis said during his March 15 General Audience.
And now, the revolution is complete with the beatification of an unborn child who was unbaptized, cementing in practice, the idea that baptism is truly superfluous:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/255332/ulma-family-beatified-on-a-day-of-joy-in-poland
-
Vatican Set to Beatify Unborn Child
Some of the Holy Innocents were unborn.
There's nothing heterodox by saying an unborn child can go to heaven, but I understand what you're saying about Modernist Rome's spin on it.
-
It is ironic that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire end up putting the final nail in the coffin of sacramental baptism.
Indeed, Rahner’s Anonymous Christian is the new ecclesiology.
Fr. Feeney’s supporters must feel an overwhelming sense of prophetic fulfillment and justification.
-
Some of the Holy Innocents were unborn.
There's nothing heterodox by saying an unborn child can go to heaven, but I understand what you're saying about Modernist Rome's spin on it.
The Holy Innocents came before the promulgation of the Gospel and prior to the sacramental institution of Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection:
“Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
P. 171 of the standard English translation by Fathers Callan & McHugh.
-
Some of the Holy Innocents were unborn.
There's nothing heterodox by saying an unborn child can go to heaven, but I understand what you're saying about Modernist Rome's spin on it.
BoB is a false doctrine. The Holy Innocents died under the old law.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
-
Some of the Holy Innocents were unborn.
Where did you hear this? I've never seen this at all. In fact, it doesn't make sense that Herod would kill any unborn child as he had specifically been told of "he that is born king of the Jews".
Did you just make this up?
-
Where did you hear this?
M (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=2&l=16-#x)att 2:16 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=2&l=16-#x) Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren [παίδας, pueros] that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under [διετούς και κατωτέρω, bimatu et infra], according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
NT Greek doesn't distinguish born and unborn infants—e.g., the same word (βρέφος) for infant is used in Lk. 18:15 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=49&ch=18&l=15-#x) ("And they brought unto him also [born] infants") as in Lk. 1:41 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=49&ch=1&l=41-#x) ("the [unborn] infant leaped in her womb").
-
And even worse:
"Who is more important in the Church: the religious sister or the ordinary person, the baptised, the unbaptised, the child, the bishop? They are all equal, we are equal,” Francis said during his March 15 General Audience.
That's openly heretical. Unbaptized are not "in the Church". Baptism is the entry into the Church.
-
Some of the Holy Innocents were unborn.
There's nothing heterodox by saying an unborn child can go to heaven, but I understand what you're saying about Modernist Rome's spin on it.
This shows how far even Trads are contaminated by centuries of attacks against Catholic ecclesiology and soteriology. Holy Innocents were also before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted. Not to mention that they were not "unborn".
Claiming that unbaptized unborn children can go to Heaven is heretical, has been condemned by numerous Popes and Councils, and is nothing short of Pelagianism.
Sad that we have stuff like this posted be self-styled Trads.
-
NT Greek doesn't distinguish born and unborn infants—e.g., the same word (βρέφος) for infant is used in Lk. 18:15 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=49&ch=18&l=15-#x) ("And they brought unto him also [born] infants") as in Lk. 1:41 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=49&ch=1&l=41-#x) ("the [unborn] infant leaped in her womb").
I'd like to see one pre-Vatican 2 theologian who agree with your assessment. As I noted above, Herod was looking for "he that is born King of the Jews", according to the Magi. He was not seeking for an unborn infant.
-
And of course, this is also another step towards the canonization of the h0Ɩ0h0αx, since they ...
... were martyred during World War II for sheltering two Jєωιѕн families from the nαzιs.
Uhm, yeah, so this constitutes martyrdom these days.
Bergoglio constantly insults the martyr saints, many of whom gave their lives for what Jorge denounces as being "rigid" about dogma, or for what Jorge would consider sinful, such as when St. Christina was martyred for smashing her father's idols, or because they wouldn't accept Cranmer's liturgy, worse than which Jorge is trying to force on all Catholics today, and now Jorge waters down martyrdom where it has to have nothing to do with the faith, but for what was at best an act of natural virtue. Disgusting on so many levels.
-
I'd like to see one pre-Vatican 2 theologian who agree with your assessment. As I noted above, Herod was looking for "he that is born King of the Jews", according to the Magi. He was not seeking for an unborn infant.
Correct. Herod knew that the Messiah had been born within the past 2 years.
-
So much… too much… enough to drive a man to despair. Come Holy Ghost…!
-
Some of the Holy Innocents were unborn.
There's nothing heterodox by saying an unborn child can go to heaven, but I understand what you're saying about Modernist Rome's spin on it.
Sorry Geremia, but this is heretical. Before one reaches the age of reason, that person cannot possibly be saved unless they have received the actual sacrament of baptism.
-
By stating that the unborn can go to Heaven is he implying that the babies were removed from the wombs of the pregnant mothers or is he implying that pregnant women were killed thus murdering the unborn as well?
Either way, can someone point of the passage in any preV2 catechism that states that the unborn might be saved? I'm not familiar with this doctrine.
-
Geremia, don't you wish to cover your Pelagianism in the veil of more accepted errors such as Baptism of Blood?
Just assert that the unborn have received Baptism of Blood and voila, you're no longer a Pelagian but a middle-of-the-road traditionalist.
I wonder how Pelagius didn't come up with that genius excuse...
-
While I'm here, I heard this nonsense how if a baby is killed in odium fidei it somehow makes it receive baptism of blood. I guess you're the best person to find the earliest reference to something like that Geremia so it'd be great if you could.
-
By stating that the unborn can go to Heaven is he implying that the babies were removed from the wombs of the pregnant mothers or is he implying that pregnant women were killed thus murdering the unborn as well?
Either way, can someone point of the passage in any preV2 catechism that states that the unborn might be saved? I'm not familiar with this doctrine.
As far as anyone can tell, it's not a doctrine. That's why you're not familiar with it. Perhaps Geremia will correct the rest of us on this, but he hasn't yet.
-
Before one reaches the age of reason, that person cannot possibly be saved unless they have received the actual sacrament of baptism.
Neither had the Holy Innocents reached the age of reason.
-
Neither had the Holy Innocents reached the age of reason.
It has been already pointed out to you that the obligation of baptism was only instituted after the resurrection. What part don't you understand?
-
I'm sorry, but exactly how did any members of this family die for Christ? Exactly how are they "martyrs"?
-
And now, the revolution is complete with the beatification of an unborn child
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/255332/ulma-family-beatified-on-a-day-of-joy-in-poland
The child wasn’t unborn. It was born. It’s right there in the article you linked to:
“The boy had been incorrectly described in some news reports as the first unborn child to be beatified, a key detail that the Vatican recently clarified.”
-
The child wasn’t unborn. It was born. It’s right there in the article you linked to:
“The boy had been incorrectly described in some news reports as the first unborn child to be beatified, a key detail that the Vatican recently clarified.”
But was the child baptised?
-
But was the child baptised?
Wasn’t baptized (as far as we know) but it was born. That means the Vatican is NOT set to beatify the first unborn child.
And the reason I said as far as we know the child wasn’t baptized is because St. Thomas said it is possible for an Angel to administer baptism. So, if the pope not only beatifies the born child, but canonized him, no one who believes it is impossible for a non baptized child to obtain the state of grace by extra sacramental means can object to it, unless they can prove that the child had not been baptized by an Angel.
-
The child wasn’t unborn. It was born. It’s right there in the article you linked to:
“The boy had been incorrectly described in some news reports as the first unborn child to be beatified, a key detail that the Vatican recently clarified.”
Yes, according to "the Vatican", "The seventh Ulma child to die was the couple’s unnamed son, who was in the process of being born."
So, supposedly the "martyrdoms" occurred just as she was giving birth. Can this be verified? Because I don't believe it.
-
So, if the pope not only beatifies the born child, but canonized him, no one who believes it is impossible for a non baptized child to obtain the state of grace by extra sacramental means can object to it, unless they can prove that the child had not been baptized by an Angel.
:laugh1: What utter nonsense! Do you know ANYTHING about how such processes actually worked before the Robber Church took over, strong-armed and mind-f*cked the entire formerly-Catholic world (Cooties-19, anyone?) and made a mockery of all things Roman Catholic???
Such a baptism would actually need to be supported by hard evidence. Contrary to your assertion, no one would need to prove a negative to object. All sane and reasonably informed Catholics, within Traddieland and without, vehemently object to just about every single "canonization" of the V2 "Popes" and the very process thereof. Like all they've touched, they've made a mockery of it.
-
Yes, according to "the Vatican", "The seventh Ulma child to die was the couple’s unnamed son, who was in the process of being born."
So, supposedly the "martyrdoms" occurred just as she was giving birth. Can this be verified? Because I don't believe it.
And why would anyone care if you believed it or not? Are you the magisterium or just some idle busy body with too much time on their hands?
-
Who cares what the Vatican says or does??? They have neither Faith nor Authority and everyone that is in Traddieland is in Traddieland precisely because this is the case. What they say is meaningless; what they do is meaningless; they are so much fuel for the fire.
-
:laugh1: What utter nonsense! Do you know ANYTHING about how such processes actually worked before the Robber Church took over, strong-armed and mind-f*cked the entire formerly-Catholic world (Cooties-19, anyone?) and made a mockery of all things Roman Catholic???
Such a baptism would actually need to be supported by hard evidence. Contrary to your assertion, no one would need to prove a negative to object. All sane and reasonably informed Catholics, within Traddieland and without, vehemently object to just about every single "canonization" of the V2 "Popes" and the very process thereof. Like all they've touched, they've made a mockery of it.
There are numerous false assumptions in your comment. First, you are assuming that Traddieland is in charge of the investigation and the canonization and process, and therefore must be presented with proof of the baptism. That’s your first error. Second, you are assuming that an unbaptized baby cannot die as a martyr after baptism became obligatory, according to the general order, whereas St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the church, taught the contrary. Since your opinion vs. his is worth nothing, it wouldn’t even be a factor under consideration. Your third error is assuming that your criteria must be met for the child to be in heaven, namely, that he was previously baptized, in which case baptism would have to be proven during the canonization process.
Based on all these false assumptions, you conclude that you personally, a nobody on a forum, could object to the canonization on the basis that the child was not baptized, even though you would have know why of knowing if this criteria, which you think is necessary (actual baptism), wasn’t actually met.
What you need to realize that you aren’t the magisterium, and no conclusions you’ve reached based on your private interpretation of snippets you’ve read from magisterial docuмents matters one bit. In the grand scheme of things, what you think means nothing, and the fact that you think it does is a bit frightening.
-
One last point is that infants can be sanctified in the womb. The Blessed Mother, John the Baptist and Jeremiah are three examples that St. Thomas gives.
-
The Ulma family: a remarkable beatification of martyrdom - Vatican News (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-08/ulma-family-remarkable-beatification-martyrdom-Jєωιѕн.html)
Tragedy struck when the Ulmas were denounced and betrayed. nαzι forces stormed their home, and their attic, where they had concealed their Jєωιѕн friends, became a site of horror. Josef and Wiktoria were executed in front of their children, with Wiktoria being seven months pregnant.
Sounds like the baby was not born.
-
Who cares what the Vatican says or does??? They have neither Faith nor Authority and everyone that is in Traddieland is in Traddieland precisely because this is the case. What they say is meaningless; what they do is meaningless; they are so much fuel for the fire.
Yes, we all know that this was political. It had nothing to with the family and everything to do with the Jews they were protecting from the "h0Ɩ0cαųst." So, yeah, not even worth arguing about.
-
The Ulma family: a remarkable beatification of martyrdom - Vatican News (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-08/ulma-family-remarkable-beatification-martyrdom-Jєωιѕн.html)
Tragedy struck when the Ulmas were denounced and betrayed. nαzι forces stormed their home, and their attic, where they had concealed their Jєωιѕн friends, became a site of horror. Josef and Wiktoria were executed in front of their children, with Wiktoria being seven months pregnant.
Sounds like the baby was not born.
it sure does. Now you can understand why the Vatican had to come out and correct the report by clarifying that she actually went into early labor and delivered the baby, lest anyone would conclude that “the Vatican was set to beatify the first unborn child.”
-
Yes, we all know that this was political. It had nothing to do with the family and everything to do with the Jєωs they were protecting
And how exactly do you know that? Was that also the motive for canonizing St. Maximillian Colby?
-
That’s the same thing my Protestant neighbor says. If I didn’t know better, I would think you were him
:sleep:
-
it sure does. Now you can understand why the Vatican had to come out and correct the report by clarifying that she actually went into early labor and delivered the baby, lest anyone would conclude that “the Vatican was set to beatify the first unborn child.”
Do you have a link to the Vatican clarification? Because so far all I've read is that it was clarified (by the Vatican).
-
And how exactly do you know that? Was that also the motive for canonizing St. Maximillian Colby?
We all know, Sean. Novus Ordo "canonizations" are done for political reasons. Undoubtedly that's a large part of why they canonized Maximilian Colby also. Now, this does not preclude that some of their candidates did not actually also possess heroic virtue, but heroic virtue is no longer a requirement for "canonization" in the Novus Ordo.
-
the obligation of baptism was only instituted after the resurrection.
So? God can still sanctify one before birth:
One last point is that infants can be sanctified in the womb. The Blessed Mother, John the Baptist and Jeremiah are three examples that St. Thomas gives.
-
So? God can still sanctify one before birth:
All three examples of people before the institution of baptism.
Do you even think before you post or?
-
Sean.
:facepalm::jester:
-
We all know, Sean. Novus Ordo "canonizations" are done for political reasons. Undoubtedly that's a large part of why they canonized Maximilian Colby also. Now, this does not preclude that some of their candidates did not actually also possess heroic virtue, but heroic virtue is no longer a requirement for "canonization" in the Novus Ordo.
Not sure who he was, but it looks like C8Trad is no longer in the Member List. Ban? Given the topic here, I was actually thinking of another former poster who was banned.
-
Kolbe
-
All three examples of people before the institution of baptism.
God is not limited by the sacraments He instituted.
-
God is not limited by the sacraments He instituted.
God is not a liar. Unless a man be born again of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Answer me this;
Can God flood the earth again?