Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Geremia on February 05, 2019, 05:45:33 PM
-
Fr. Francis O’Connell, C.Ss.R., Outlines of Moral Theology (1953), as quoted on the last page of Conlon's Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire/page/n179):
Baptism of Desire ... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition... These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood & Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament... Even an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith...
-
#1) very few aborted babies are killed due to someone being actuated from contempt for the faith
#2) So what? This guy makes it up; it's a gratuitous statement rooted in wishful thinking. Where's the theological proof for it?
-
Quote
Baptism of Desire ... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition...
I have heard this argument as the mechanism for BOD, but it doesn't quite match with what the Saints have said about "perfect contrition".
In the attached lecture by St. Alphonsus De' Ligouri, he explains perfect contrition, but only in the context of it being used by Baptized Catholics when they have no access to the priestly Absolution from Confession.
Perfect Contrition, The Golden Key To Paradise, St. Alphonsus De’ Liguori, Whole Catholic Audiobook (https://youtu.be/oHXJEiTFngQ)
-
Aborted babies do not die as martyrs for Christ and His Church. The situation is completely different and you know it. This is just another silly attempt to reduce Catholic dogma to a meaningless formula so at the end, everyone can just believe what they want.
“Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome , Journel: 166).
-
Where's the theological proof for it?
Pope Benedict XIV Doctrina de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione lib. 3 cap. 15 (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MoYPAAAAQAAJ/page/n135) "De requisitis in martyre necessariis ante martyrium":
Martyrium dicitur baptismus sanguinis Marc. 10. In adultis est actus fortitudinis, et caritatis : quoad infantes, sufficit occisos fuisse ex odio in Christum, ut martyrium suppleat vices baptismi aquæ, deleatque ex opere operato peccatum originale quoad culpam, et poenam, ut docet S. Thomas (2, 2, qu. 124, art. 1 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS124.html#SSQ124A1THEP1) ad 1)
What constitutes killing out of hatred of Christ (ex odio in Christum) is not as restrictive as some may think. As Billot, S.J. (De ecclesiæ sacramentis t. 1 p. 242 (https://archive.org/details/deecclesiaesacra01bill/page/242)) mentions, a "formal hatred of Christ and His religion" is not necessary, as some emperors who martyred did so only out of motives of ignorance of Christianity, upholding civil law, or public opinion; however, they did target Christians specifically.
Cdl. Cajetan, O.P., in his commentary (https://archive.org/details/operaomniaiussui12thom/page/n128) on III q. 68 a. 11 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A11THEP1) ("Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?") is even more explicit, saying that even in utero infants can be martyrs like the Holy Innocents:
Si enim propter Christum infans in utero occideretur, martyr esset, non minus quam Innocentes.
-
Where's the theological proof for it?
Pope Benedict XIV Doctrina de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione lib. 3 cap. 15 (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MoYPAAAAQAAJ/page/n135) "De requisitis in martyre necessariis ante martyrium":
What constitutes killing out of hatred of Christ (ex odio in Christum) is not as restrictive as some may think. As Billot, S.J. (De ecclesiæ sacramentis t. 1 p. 242 (https://archive.org/details/deecclesiaesacra01bill/page/242)) mentions, a "formal hatred of Christ and His religion" is not necessary, as some emperors who martyred did so only out of motives of ignorance of Christianity, upholding civil law, or public opinion; however, they did target Christians specifically.
Cdl. Cajetan, O.P., in his commentary (https://archive.org/details/operaomniaiussui12thom/page/n128) on III q. 68 a. 11 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A11THEP1) ("Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?") is even more explicit, saying that even in utero infants can be martyrs like the Holy Innocents:
Actually, we know there is only theological proof against it, because the murder of the innocent is one of the sins that cries to heaven for vengeance, it's perpetration via abortion comes straight from hell. The devil may not get those souls, but neither does God - and to Satan, that is all that matters.
-
Pope Benedict XIV Doctrina de servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione lib. 3 cap. 15 (https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MoYPAAAAQAAJ/page/n135) "De requisitis in martyre necessariis ante martyrium":
What constitutes killing out of hatred of Christ (ex odio in Christum) is not as restrictive as some may think. As Billot, S.J. (De ecclesiæ sacramentis t. 1 p. 242 (https://archive.org/details/deecclesiaesacra01bill/page/242)) mentions, a "formal hatred of Christ and His religion" is not necessary, as some emperors who martyred did so only out of motives of ignorance of Christianity, upholding civil law, or public opinion; however, they did target Christians specifically.
The argument is not that only adults (and not babies) can be martyrs. It is that abortions do not constitute the right circuмstance for martyrdom.
Do you really think that women are killing their babies in the womb on any religious ground whatsoever? Look carefully at the motive. Women have abortions simply to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy; not because of any hatred of Christ and His religion, "odio in Christum", either formal or implicit. Abortions do not constitute religious persecution in any way. A woman is not killing her unborn because he is a Christian.
-
Cdl. Cajetan, O.P., in his commentary (https://archive.org/details/operaomniaiussui12thom/page/n128) on III q. 68 a. 11 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A11THEP1) ("Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?") is even more explicit, saying that even in utero infants can be martyrs like the Holy Innocents:
The key here is the motive for the killing. Do they put the in utero baby to death for the sake of Christ?
From Cajetan's commentary:
Ex eo quod status ille est capax baptismi sanguinis.
Si enim propter Christum infants in utero occideretur, martyr esset, non minus quam innocentes
Rationabile siquidem videtur parentum fidem posse optando percudere ad id ad quod corporalis passio infantem ducit
It seems to me that this would allow for a case of a pregnant Christian woman actually dying as a martyr for Christ and His Church (let's say all her family is being killed for being Catholic and she is pregnant). Her unborn child then would count as a martyr, according to Cajetan's commentary. This is far far from being the case of the millions of infants being killed daily in Planned Parenthood by their mothers who have an abortion just so they can get rid of the inconvenience of their pregnancies. These babies are not dying for the sake of Christ; but for the irresponsibility of their mothers.
-
The key here is the motive for the killing. Do they put the in utero baby to death for the sake of Christ?
From Cajetan's commentary:
It seems to me that this would allow for a case of a pregnant Christian woman actually dying as a martyr for Christ and His Church (let's say all her family is being killed for being Catholic and she is pregnant). Her unborn child then would count as a martyr, according to Cajetan's commentary. This is far far from being the case of the millions of infants being killed daily in Planned Parenthood by their mothers who have an abortion just so they can get rid of the inconvenience of their pregnancies. These babies are not dying for the sake of Christ; but for the irresponsibility of their mothers.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
-
A woman is not killing her unborn because he is a Christian.
But an abortionist could.
-
These babies are not dying for the sake of Christ; but for the irresponsibility of their mothers.
What if the abortionist intends to kill Christians' children?
-
In the attached lecture by St. Alphonsus De' Ligouri, he explains perfect contrition, but only in the context of it being used by Baptized Catholics when they have no access to the priestly Absolution from Confession.
Other good resources on the perfect contrition question: those linked in "Perfect Contrition: The Key to Heaven, especially for Our Times (https://novusordowatch.org/2017/11/perfect-contrition-key-to-heaven/)," esp. the interview with Fr. Bernard Uttley (https://traffic.libsyn.com/force-cdn/highwinds/tradcast/TR-spiritual-life-perfect-contrition-bernard-uttley.mp3)
-
What if the abortionist intends to kill Christians' children?
Well, for starters, it's not sufficient for martyrdom that the guy who shoots you hates Catholics. YOU have to be WILLING to die for Christ. A Catholic who is taken to the Colosseum kicking and screaming is not going willingly, and so it cannot be construed as an act of love. He is not "laying his life down" for the beloved, but rather is having it taken from him unwillingly. This is not martyrdom.
The woman who goes to the abortionist is in a state of automatic excommunication and has been cut off from the communion of the faithful. She is complicit. The abortionist is complicit.
WHERE is the perfect contrition, the perfect act of charity, the willingness to suffer for Christ, the implicit/explicit faith, intention to receive baptism, etc., etc., etc., coming from?
-
But an abortionist could.
No he couldn't, because the child is not a Christian. Furthermore, the child is incapable of having a rational thought, and is in capable of forming any intention whatsoever, explicit or implicit.
-
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
-
Dogma - “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…” -Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442
"Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ." -Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epistle 167, AD 415
-
Dogmatically speaking, we can conclude that pope Francis and Bp Bernard Fellay are teaching heresies and outside the One, Holy, Apostolic Church.
As Father Hesse would say, they are part of the schismatic, conciliar church.
-
This "aborted babies and baptism of blood" notion is a perfect example of "mission creep (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mission%20creep)." What started out as theological speculation with a very narrow set of parameters (a catechumen who dies for explicit faith in Christ and His Church) ends up undermining the entire edifice of Catholic doctrine. Truth isn't necessary, the sacraments aren't necessary, the moral law isn't necessary, revelation isn't necessary, the true religion isn't necessary. Not even "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" is necessary. None of it is necessary.
We're supposed to be resisting error. Why even bother? Clearly, truth doesn't matter. People can get to heaven without it.
Add to that the fact that, if aborted babies get "baptism of blood" and go straight to heaven, then abortion loses it's horror.
The early Catholics did not resist persecution and martyrdom. They embraced it. If aborted babies go to heaven, then why are we resisting their "martyrdom"? It seems to me the abortionist is doing them a favor, sending them straight to heaven.
-
Ecuмenical Council of Vienne re-affirming there is only ONE Baptism the Church actually knows of:
All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith’. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.
No mention of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood in any infallible teaching of the Church.
-
Dogmatically speaking, we can conclude that pope Francis and Bp Bernard Fellay are teaching heresies and outside the One, Holy, Apostolic Church.
As Father Hesse would say, they are part of the schismatic, conciliar church.
Funny thing is that Bp. Fellay says that 5% of Vatican II is error; but he sides with this 5%.
-
This "aborted babies and baptism of blood" notion is a perfect example of "mission creep (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mission%20creep)." What started out as theological speculation with a very narrow set of parameters (a catechumen who dies for explicit faith in Christ and His Church) ends up undermining the entire edifice of Catholic doctrine. Truth isn't necessary, the sacraments aren't necessary, the moral law isn't necessary, revelation isn't necessary, the true religion isn't necessary. Not even "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" is necessary. None of it is necessary.
We're supposed to be resisting error. Why even bother? Clearly, truth doesn't matter. People can get to heaven without it.
Add to that the fact that, if aborted babies get "baptism of blood" and go straight to heaven, then abortion loses it's horror.
The early Catholics did not resist persecution and martyrdom. They embraced it. If aborted babies go to heaven, then why are we resisting their "martyrdom"? It seems to me the abortionist is doing them a favor, sending them straight to heaven.
"Mission creep"... beautiful!
200 years ago, from the ѕуηαgσgυєs, the devil and his minions could foresee it happening.
And in the early 1940s, Father Feeney figured it out.
He understood that Catholics had become weak in the Faith by the wavering and uncertainty of salvation outside the Church.
And now we have the trad Pope (Fellay) opening the Gates of Heaven to all those who "wish" it could be :facepalm:
-
Yes, the lack of any act of the will on the part of infants is key.
To say that BoB can apply to infants turns the action of BoB into ex opere operato ... i.e. essentially into a Sacrament.
BoB has an interesting history. St. Cyprian, perhaps the originator of the notion, spoke of BoB as a SACRAMENT. Modern theologians cite this as an error.
But was it really?
Elsewhere, St. Cyprian says that BoB martyrs are "washed" in their own blood while angels pronounce the words.
So he saw it as an alterate mode of receiving the Sacrament, with blood supplying for water as the matter, while angels supplied the missing form. He did not see this as an exception to the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
-
No he couldn't, because the child is not a Christian.
Nor were the Holy Innocents before martyrdom. Some were not even circuмcised (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine De Sacramento Baptismi p. 166 (https://archive.org/details/operaomnia03bell/page/166), first full ¶); thus, they were justified solely by martyrdom.
Furthermore, the child is incapable of having a rational thought, and is in capable of forming any intention whatsoever, explicit or implicit.
One needn't be of the age of reason to be martyred. See Pope Benedict XIV's bull Beatus Andreas (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The%20Bull%20Beatus%20Andreas.htm) for several examples of young martyrs.
-
Add to that the fact that, if aborted babies get "baptism of blood" and go straight to heaven, then abortion loses it's horror.
It's not the gravest sin there is. Atheism/unbelief, for example, is much more serious.
-
Yes, the lack of any act of the will on the part of infants is key.
How do you explain the Holy Innocents, then?
-
Dogma - “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…” -Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442
["Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ." -Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epistle 167, AD 415
No one here denies these dogmas, but what do they have to do with this thread's question of whether an unborn baby can be martyred?
-
And in the early 1940s, Father Feeney figured it out.
There are Feeneyites among "The Resistance" and this forum?
-
Nor were the Holy Innocents before martyrdom. Some were not even circuмcised (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine De Sacramento Baptismi p. 166 (https://archive.org/details/operaomnia03bell/page/166), first full ¶); thus, they were justified solely by martyrdom.
The Holy Innocents died under the Old Law, and were not subject to the new dispensation of baptism. Under no circuмstances is their situation even remotely similar to those of aborted babies who die under the New Law. The obligation to receive the sacrament of baptism didn't come into effect until Pentecost Sunday, 33 AD.
One needn't be of the age of reason to be martyred. See Pope Benedict XIV's bull Beatus Andreas (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The%20Bull%20Beatus%20Andreas.htm) for several examples of young martyrs.
No one said you had to be the age of reason to be martyred. We're not discussing martyrs here. We're discussing babies who are murdered in the womb.
-
It's not the gravest sin there is. Atheism/unbelief, for example, is much more serious.
Your view causes abortion to be a joyful thing. Eternal bliss in heaven.
Tell me, does the baby in question believe?
-
How do you explain the Holy Innocents, then?
See my previous response.
-
There are Feeneyites among "The Resistance" and this forum?
Yes.
We're everywhere.
-
How do you explain the Holy Innocents, then?
Geremia, you have asked about the Holy Innocents on various forums and have gotten proper, CATHOLIC responses. You just don't want to believe them. The Holy Innocents can NOT be compared with aborted babies.
I'm not a "Feeneyite" and I completely agree with all of the posters here on this topic. And it bothers me that there hasn't been anyone else to join in against Geremia's need to get aborted babies to Heaven.
-
I'm not a "Feeneyite" and I completely agree with all of the posters here on this topic. And it bothers me that there hasn't been anyone else to join in against Geremia's need to get aborted babies to Heaven.
Observe. What Geremia (as well as the many people today trying to get aborted babies to Heaven) is doing here with the Baptism of Blood is basically the same thing that new-modernists have done with the Baptism of Desire, and what Fr. Feeney realized earlier on and tried to combat. It all boils down to possible salvation for those without Faith nor Baptism. It's always the same procedure. A total slippery slope following a dillusion of dogma, as if dogma could be altered according to circuмstance and place.
-
Geremia, it's real simple, brah. One can't be a martyr without being a Catholic, and one can't be Catholic without first being baptized with water and Spirit. Just some basic theology and a little logic, brah.
-
Geremia, it's real simple, brah. One can't be a martyr without being a Catholic, and one can't be Catholic without first being baptized with water and Spirit. Just some basic theology and a little logic, brah.
While I agree with your basic point, you have done revealed yourself as Croix/Quid by your use of "brah". You just can't manage to lay low, can you?
-
Yes.
We're everywhere.
:laugh1:
-
How do you explain the Holy Innocents, then?
Under the Mosaic Law, the Holy Innocents were likely. Circuмcised. The family father usually performed the rite.
Recall that Our Lord was circuмcised after only 8 days.
Holy Therese Neumann had a vision of the slaughter and saw the souls of the Holy Innocents rising to Heaven like incense.
-
Under the Mosaic Law, the Holy Innocents were likely. Circuмcised.
Under the New Law, the martyrs were likely. Water Baptized. :cowboy:
-
what Fr. Feeney realized earlier on and tried to combat. It all boils down to possible salvation for those without Faith nor Baptism.
How did Fr. Feeney explain the Holy Innocents?
-
How did Fr. Feeney explain the Holy Innocents?
Geremia, are you even reading any of the preceding posts, or are we wasting our time here? The Holy Innocents question has already been dealt with in this thread. Several times.
-
The Holy Innocents died under the Old Law, and were not subject to the new dispensation of baptism. Under no circuмstances is their situation even remotely similar to those of aborted babies who die under the New Law. The obligation to receive the sacrament of baptism didn't come into effect until Pentecost Sunday, 33 AD.
-
The Holy Innocents died under the Old Law, and were not subject to the new dispensation of baptism.
St. Robert argues not all the Holy Innocents were circuмcised; thus, it was not circuмcision that justified them; it was their martyrdom itself which gave graces ex opere operato (De Sacramento Baptismi (https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2Foperaomnia03bell%2Fpage%2F166%3AECC9jOVNKQN039lJ5sZ3KNbImkk&cuid=3575867) p. 166, first full ¶).
-
:facepalm:
-
St. Robert argues not all the Holy Innocents were circuмcised; thus, it was not circuмcision that justified them; it was their martyrdom itself which gave graces ex opere operato (De Sacramento Baptismi (https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.org%2Fdetails%2Foperaomnia03bell%2Fpage%2F166%3AECC9jOVNKQN039lJ5sZ3KNbImkk&cuid=3575867) p. 166, first full ¶).
What are St Robert's grounds for such a statement (can't read the link you posted); after all the reason for killing those lttle boys under 2 years of age, (by which time little Jєωιѕн boys are already circuмcised) was to eliminate Jesus, Who of course had already been whipped off to Egypt by His parents. If they weren't circuмcised then they weren't Jєωιѕн, and so would not have been martyred.
-
How did Fr. Feeney explain the Holy Innocents?
First, they died under the Old Law of salvation, as it has been explained before. Most Holy Innocents would have been circuмcised anyway, just like the martyrs have most likely been water baptized.
Second, they were slaughtered for the sake of Jesus. Aborted babies are NOT slaughtered for the sake of Jesus. :fryingpan:
-
Fr. Fenney:
Salvation in the Old Testament was from God the Father, promising the Blood of His Divine Son. Salvation in the New Testament is from God the Son, promising His water and the Holy Ghost.
The Blood that flowed from the side of Jesus when He died on the Cross was a testimony to us of what God the Father had given. God the Father did not spare His only Divine Son.
The Water that flowed from the side of Christ, when He was crucified on the Cross, was a testimony of the Water of Baptism, which He would give, in union with the Holy Ghost, to save the world. “As the Father hath sent me,” Christ said to His Apostles, “I also send you.” (John 20:21.)
Salvation in the New Testament is the complete performance of the Blessed Trinity — is of the Father, and the Son He sent, and of the Holy Ghost, sent by the Son. “But I tell you the truth,” Our Lord said, “it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.” (John 16:7.)
The waters of Baptism were purchased by the Blood of Jesus. Those who teach whatever Jesus commanded His Apostles to teach, now teach with raging tongues of fire. Baptism is the water of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Who was sent by the First Person, to take water and unite it to the power of the Third.
The Blessed Trinity is in complete covenant with the world once Baptism has been given us by Jesus. When Jesus was baptized by John in the River Jordan, the Father’s voice was heard, saying, “This is My Beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased.” And the Spirit of God — the Holy Spirit — was seen, descending in the form of a dove.
-
What are St Robert's grounds for such a statement.
here's the fixed link: De Sacramento Baptismi p. 166 (https://archive.org/details/operaomnia03bell/page/166), first full ¶:
Some [who argue martyrdom alone cannot justify] respond that the Innocents were circuмcised, hence justified before martyrdom. But this is not so. For it is uncertain whether they were all circuмcised; nay, it is very probable and almost certain not all were circuмcised. For Herod killed all the children who were in Bethlehem and its environs; he did not command only the children of Jєωs but utterly all be killed: and perhaps not a few Gentiles were among them. Moreover, he ordered that all infants two years and younger be killed, hence even those who were not yet 8 days old, who alone can be circuмcised. Still, it is not de fide that circuмcision justifies, and yet the Church certainly believes that absolutely all those infants are saved. Further, the Church not only believes the Innocents are saved but even honors them as martyrs; therefore, suffering for Christ conveys something to them ex opere operato. Nor is Scotus's argument that this is a privilege of children count: for it is asserted without any grounds. For if martyrdom profits infants ex opere operato, why not adults? Certainly the martyrdom of adults is no less powerful and efficacious than of infants; rather, it is more powerful, more noble, and more efficacious.
If they weren't circuмcised then they weren't Jєωιѕн, and so would not have been martyred.
Circuмcision nor water baptism is required for martyrdom.
-
Most Holy Innocents would have been circuмcised anyway, just like the martyrs have most likely been water baptized.
St. Emerentiana (https://www.bartleby.com/210/1/233.html) was a young martyred catechumen (cf. Pohle-Preuss v. 1 p. 251 (https://archive.org/details/sacramentsdogmat01pohluoft/page/251)).
-
Fr. Fenney:
Salvation in the Old Testament was from God the Father, promising the Blood of His Divine Son. Salvation in the New Testament is from God the Son, promising His water and the Holy Ghost.
Salvation in the New Testament is the complete performance of the Blessed Trinity
What's his support of these assertions?
-
St. Emerentiana (https://www.bartleby.com/210/1/233.html) was a young martyred catechumen (cf. Pohle-Preuss v. 1 p. 251 (https://archive.org/details/sacramentsdogmat01pohluoft/page/251)).
Red herring. She was obviously put to death on account of being Christian. What's at issue is whether unborn babies who are killed largely indiscriminately, for reasons of personal selfishness or financial gain, could qualify as martyrs. I would imagine that there's maybe one case out of a million where the abortion doctor thinks, "Aha, I want to kill this baby because he's otherwise grow up to be a Christian." And exactly ZERO mothers subject their children to abortion because they don't want their child to become Christian ... for all they'd have to do is to raise them to think otherwise and to reject Christianity. So on all fronts applying BoB to aborted babies is an epic fail, an exercise in emotion-based pseudo-theology ... from where all anti-EENS thinking originates.
-
Under the New Law, the martyrs were likely. Water Baptized. :cowboy:
Correct. During times of persecutions, the catechumens received emergency Baptism, but, apart from early reception of the Sacrament, continued on in the status of catechumen, continuing to learn and being prepared for the fullness of the Church's Sacramental life. So references in Church history to martyred catechumens are inconclusive and moot.
-
Red herring.
I was refuting the assertion that water baptism or circuмcision is necessary for martyrdom.
-
Did the killing of the Holy Innocents do something for their justification? Bellarmine thinks so. Others disagree. Bellarmine has to posit an ex opere operato action of martyrdom. But that's a real problem. So you have an adult who's a formal heretic and explicitly rejects the Catholic Church, but then is martyred for being a Christian. with the ex opere operato theory of Bellarmine, and the quasi-ex-opere-operato expression of St. Alphonsus, that heretic would be justified and saved. But the Church has taught otherwise dogmatically, that BoD does not apply to those who lack the Catholic faith. And infants lack the Catholic faith, since it has not been infused by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Nevertheless, here's the key. In no way could this action have constituted a substitute for Baptism for the Holy Innocents, since Baptism as a sacrament did not yet exist. It's the dogmatic teaching of Trent that there can be NO justification since the promulgation of the Gospel WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism. Even if one posits the existence of BoD and BoB, even in those cases the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification. Otherwise, you commit the heresy of claiming that people can be justified without Baptism. But in the case of the Holy Innocents, the Sacrament could not have been the instrumental cause of justification, since it did not exist.
-
I was refuting the assertion that water baptism or circuмcision is necessary for martyrdom.
Church has dogmatically taught that the Catholic faith is necessary for martyrdom. Period. At least with a martyred catechumen (even if you believed they were unbaptized catechumens), they obviously have professed the Catholic faith already. So how exactly did these infants receive the Catholic faith? Answer: they couldn't, unless you claim that BoB is now an 8th Sacrament, and somehow results in the infusion of supernatural faith. That is not taught by the Church. That's why the Church teaches that there is no remedy for children to be saved apart from the Sacrament of Baptism. Even if something ex opere operato happened to the Holy Innocents, the argument from them towards modern BoB for infants falls flat because of the requirement for supernatural faith for salvation.
-
Did the killing of the Holy Innocents do something for their justification? Bellarmine thinks so. Others disagree. Bellarmine has to posit an ex opere operato action of martyrdom. But that's a real problem. So you have an adult who's a formal heretic and explicitly rejects the Catholic Church, but then is martyred for being a Christian. with the ex opere operato theory of Bellarmine, and the quasi-ex-opere-operato expression of St. Alphonsus, that heretic would be justified and saved.
No, because heresy places an obstacle to the grace (ibid. (https://archive.org/details/operaomnia03bell/page/166), end of 3rd full ¶)
-
No, because heresy places an obstacle to the grace (ibid. (https://archive.org/details/operaomnia03bell/page/166), end of 3rd full ¶)
Why? Because there's no supernatural faith in a heretic. Explain how BoB for infants infuses the supernatural faith that's lacking.
-
Explain how BoB for infants infuses the supernatural faith that's lacking.
However it was done for the Holy Innocents.
-
This "aborted babies and baptism of blood" notion is a perfect example of "mission creep (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mission%20creep)." What started out as theological speculation with a very narrow set of parameters (a catechumen who dies for explicit faith in Christ and His Church) ends up undermining the entire edifice of Catholic doctrine. Truth isn't necessary, the sacraments aren't necessary, the moral law isn't necessary, revelation isn't necessary, the true religion isn't necessary. Not even "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" is necessary. None of it is necessary.
We're supposed to be resisting error. Why even bother? Clearly, truth doesn't matter. People can get to heaven without it.
Add to that the fact that, if aborted babies get "baptism of blood" and go straight to heaven, then abortion loses it's horror.
The early Catholics did not resist persecution and martyrdom. They embraced it. If aborted babies go to heaven, then why are we resisting their "martyrdom"? It seems to me the abortionist is doing them a favor, sending them straight to heaven.
Nonsensical argument. I agree that abortion isn't martyrdom, but your argument here(that we should let martyrdom continue because the martyrs are saved) just doesn't stand. Just because we are to embrace martyrdom rather than denounce the faith, does NOT mean we are to let our fellow Catholics be martyred. If Catholics were being into the Colosseum to be eaten by Lions if they did not renounce, they would be saved. So would we just let the practice continue and let our brothers and sister in Christ be massacred? Obviously not. Many wars were fought for the explicit purpose of saving people from martyrdom. To argue that if the unborn babies were martyred and saved, that we should not stop abortion, is the same as arguing that if Catholic pilgrims being murdered in the Holy Land were saved that the Crusaders shouldn't have fought to secure them safe passage. The Crusaders didn't decide that pilgrims being slaughtered lost its horror because those pilgrims went to Heaven, they didn't decide to just sit back and leave it happen. They still recognised it as a horrible crime demanding vengeance. So even if abortion was martyrdom(which I don't believe it is), we would still fight just as hard to stop it.
-
However it was done for the Holy Innocents.
Old Covenant.
-
Old Covenant.
Y'all are wasting your time.
-
And exactly ZERO mothers subject their children to abortion because they don't want their child to become Christian ... for all they'd have to do is to raise them to think otherwise and to reject Christianity. So on all fronts applying BoB to aborted babies is an epic fail, an exercise in emotion-based pseudo-theology ... from where all anti-EENS thinking originates.
Agreed.
(1)The only reason why abortionists kill the babies is because the MOTHERS wish it. And none of these mothers are killing their babies because they hate Christ or the Catholic Faith.
(2) This NEED to believe that at least some of these aborted babies might be in Heaven (despite that belief going against hundreds of years of Catholic teaching) is based on emotion. It's no different than thinking one's non-Catholic mother, sister, etc might be in Heaven because of Baptism of Desire...even though they never exhibited any interest in being Catholic while alive.
-
However it was done for the Holy Innocents.
For the 58th time, no it was not. And, secondly, the Holy Innocents were killed on account of Our Lord. You've been able to address neither one of these because you've already made up your mind that you would like it that aborted babies are in heaven.
Unfortunately, due to the decay of today's society, the vast majority of those aborted babies would have ended up in hell, had they been able to live out their lives. So even that is an act of God's mercy, that they instead end up in a place of perfect natural happiness for all eternity. Think about the happiest you could ever imagine yourself in this life, without any pain or suffering or illness or fatigue or sadness, and that's what they get to enjoy for eternity, by God's mercy.
-
Also, the Church has never listed all the infants who were killed by Herod. We don’t know which ones the Church declares as “Holy Innocent” or martyr. She has never said that 100% of them went to heaven. She only tells us to pray to those that WERE martyrs. Even if a gentile child died and went to Limbo, they could still be called a “holy innocent” since they aren’t in hell. The Church has never declared they are all in heaven; this is St Robert’s opinion only.
-
You've been able to address neither one of these because you've already made up your mind that you would like it that aborted babies are in heaven.
That's almost word for word what I told him at the beginning of the other thread when he started this idea of his. The man is a perfect example of what is described in 2Tim4:
(https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-3.htm)"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables". (2Tim4)
(https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-5.htm)
Dogma - “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…” -Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442
"Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ." -Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epistle 167, AD 415
-
Nonsensical argument. I agree that abortion isn't martyrdom, but your argument here(that we should let martyrdom continue because the martyrs are saved) just doesn't stand. Just because we are to embrace martyrdom rather than denounce the faith, does NOT mean we are to let our fellow Catholics be martyred. If Catholics were being into the Colosseum to be eaten by Lions if they did not renounce, they would be saved. So would we just let the practice continue and let our brothers and sister in Christ be massacred? Obviously not. Many wars were fought for the explicit purpose of saving people from martyrdom. To argue that if the unborn babies were martyred and saved, that we should not stop abortion, is the same as arguing that if Catholic pilgrims being murdered in the Holy Land were saved that the Crusaders shouldn't have fought to secure them safe passage. The Crusaders didn't decide that pilgrims being slaughtered lost its horror because those pilgrims went to Heaven, they didn't decide to just sit back and leave it happen. They still recognised it as a horrible crime demanding vengeance. So even if abortion was martyrdom(which I don't believe it is), we would still fight just as hard to stop it.
You missed the point, and you are reading far more into my words than what was actually said. I did not make the argument that we should "let martyrdom continue because the martyrs are saved"
Geremia is conflating abortion with martyrdom. We have pro-life rallies, giant marches down the streets of Washington DC, protests, etc., to resist abortion.
During the Roman persecutions, they didn't have pro-Christian rallies, giant marches down the streets of Rome, protests, etc., to resist the martyrdom of Catholics.
Yes, the early Catholics "resisted" in the sense of keeping their activities clandestine, but there was no active "resistance", such as exists now with the pro-life movement.
"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
No one is celebrating or excusing the sin of murdering Catholics or murdering babies. But if aborted babies are martyrs, as Geremia argues, we ought to celebrate their martyrdom as the Church celebrates the death of the early martyrs. True martyrdom is a glorious, joyful thing. Even in the liturgy for martyrs there are no tears.
In Thy strength, O Lord, the just man shall joy: and in Thy salvation he shall rejoice exceedingly: Thou hast given him his heart's desire. -- (Ps. 20. 4). For Thou hast prevented him with blessings of sweetness: Thou hast set on his head a crown of precious stones. V.: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. In Thy strength, O Lord, the just man shall joy: and in Thy salvation he shall rejoice exceedingly: Thou hast given him his heart's desire.
Geremia's emotional, theologically bankrupt view takes the sting out of abortion. If aborted babies get "baptism of blood" and go straight to heaven, then abortion does indeed lose its horror, for the infant has "set on his head a crown of precious stones".
-
Cdl. Cajetan, O.P., in his commentary (https://archive.org/details/operaomniaiussui12thom/page/n128) on III q. 68 a. 11 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A11THEP1) ("Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?") is even more explicit, saying that even in utero infants can be martyrs like the Holy Innocents:
I am pretty sure that Cajetan's general opinions on the fate of unbaptized babies are heterodox, anyway. It seems that he also shared the error of Calvin, that of believing that unbaptized babies may be saved through Baptism of Desire. This "desire" being that of the parents. I have not read the original writing but arch-heretic Calvin also taught that infants born of parents who have the Faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism.
Fortunately, Cajetan's error on infantile Baptism of Desire "was ordered expunged from his works by the Pope. In his decree against the Synod of Pistoia in 1794, Pius VI alludes to “that place of the lower regions which the faithful generally designate as the limbo of the children” in which the souls of those dying “with the sole guilt of original sin”. Nevertheless, the view which the Holy Father adopts in no way holds either for a parental or infantile ‘baptism of desire’ nor for the rewards of the Beatific Vision for unbaptized souls (Denzinger 1526). This limbo of the children amounts to merely the ‘highest place’ in the abode of Hell, as explained by St. Vincent Ferrer in his sermon preached on the Octave of the Epiphany.
https://catholicism.org/unbaptized-infants-malone.html
-
The mentioned error of Pistoia that His Holiness Pius VI condemned reads as follows:
The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only
[Baptism, sec. 3]
Danzinger 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.
-
I read the Latin text at the link to Cajetan.
He believed that infants could benefit from BoB ... but only if they were killed "propter Christum" (on account of Christ). He again used the Holy Innocents example, but failed to take into account that this was in the Old Dispensation.
Secondly, he believed in a vicarious Baptism of Desire, whereby if the parents desired to baptize the child, the child could benefit from desire. This is what was forced to be expunged from his writings.
-
What's interesting also is that St. Augustine cited St. Cyprian as the originator of the BoB concept, and mentioned that St. Cyprian had argued from the example of the Good Thief. That's a double fail. Not only did the Good Thief die in the old dispensation, but he was not killed on account of Christ, but for his crimes.
-
Right. The good thief was saved for 2 reasons, both of which were necessary under the Old Law (and still are, under the New...but the New has additional requirements) - Faith and contrition. St Dismas recognized Christ as his redeemer and confessed his sins with a pure act of love. Christ acknowledged his Faith and personally forgave him his sins. St Dismas also accepted his sufferings as just on account of his crimes. This is exactly how the Jєωs were saved in the Old Testament and also how we are in the new, except we have Faith in Christ through His Church and we confess our sins to Christ through a priest.
Hard to compare St Dismas to any other saint (Old/new) since he’s one of the few choice persons to actually talk to Christ when he was on earth.