FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Hope or Presumption?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Furthermore, as we've been saying, the infants dont "have" such means. If they are used, it is God that "has" them. All we have is baptism.
Quote: If you only assent to Catholic beliefs based on the criteria of infallibility, then you cannot be a Catholic in good standing.

And if the Church actually taught that it was impossible for God to make a way possible for unbaptized infants to be saved, and this was something I was required to accept by faith, you would be able to provide something more substantial than a few random one-liners.  So, yeah, I'd say I'm still a Catholic in good standing.  Rejecting one's interpretation that has not been definitively taught by the Church as binding on all Catholics, just because it is the traditionalist interpretation, does not mean I am not a Catholic in good-standing.  I really feel sorry for you people, do you allow yourselves any joy in life, or is that just a near occasion of sin?
Melkite Wrote:
Quote: If you only assent to Catholic beliefs based on the criteria of infallibility, then you cannot be a Catholic in good standing.

And if the Church actually taught that it was impossible for God to make a way possible for unbaptized infants to be saved, and this was something I was required to accept by faith, you would be able to provide something more substantial than a few random one-liners.  So, yeah, I'd say I'm still a Catholic in good standing.  Rejecting one's interpretation that has not been definitively taught by the Church as binding on all Catholics, just because it is the traditionalist interpretation, does not mean I am not a Catholic in good-standing.  I really feel sorry for you people, do you allow yourselves any joy in life, or is that just a near occasion of sin?

I see you haven't read a pre-CCC catechism in your life.  Although doing so would likely be a near occasion of sin in your land of nuts and honey.   
Quote: I see you haven't read a pre-CCC catechism in your life.

You're right, I haven't.  Does any pre-CCC catechism teach that God definitely does not make a way to heaven possible for unbaptized infants and victims of abortion or miscarriage?  If so, please show me and I'll gladly align my beliefs with this teaching of the Church that I am so far unaware of.
Melkite Wrote:
Quote: I see you haven't read a pre-CCC catechism in your life.

You're right, I haven't.  Does any pre-CCC catechism teach that God definitely does not make a way to heaven possible for unbaptized infants and victims of abortion or miscarriage?  If so, please show me and I'll gladly align my beliefs with this teaching of the Church that I am so far unaware of.

Catechisms don't teach negative proof fallacies. 
Well, exactly. They cant teach negatively something that wasnt Revealed specifically as such. If it can happen, it may. We can only hope.
7HolyCats Wrote:Well, exactly. They cant teach negatively something that wasnt Revealed specifically as such. If it can happen, it may. We can only hope.

What is hope without any foundation in the Faith though?  This is a misuse of the word. St. Augustine says, “what can be hoped for which is not believed?"  The virtue of hope is directly related to the faith.  The truth is that it is a sentimentalism. 
No one is speaking here of the theological virtue of Hope, which applies only to ourselves and our own salvation anyway (which is why it is lost through mortal sin). "Hope" here is being used more broadly as an epistemological stance in opposition to "sure knowledge" either way, etc.
Quote: Catechisms don't teach negative proof fallacies. 

Ok, you lost me somewhere.  The Church can teach that unbaptized babies can't go to heaven, because God doesn't make another way possible, through quotes from the Fathers, but it is unable to say the same thing explicitly in a catechism?  I don't understand why, please explain.  If the Church is unable to clearly teach something, I don't understand how I can still be bound to accept it.
Melkite Wrote:
Quote: Catechisms don't teach negative proof fallacies. 

Ok, you lost me somewhere.  The Church can teach that unbaptized babies can't go to heaven, because God doesn't make another way possible, through quotes from the Fathers, but it is unable to say the same thing explicitly in a catechism?  I don't understand why, please explain.  If the Church is unable to clearly teach something, I don't understand how I can still be bound to accept it.

The Church has clearly taught through various channels the notion of a children's limbo and that only water baptism can save them.  For example:

Quote:Baltimore Catechism
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Note the catechism says belief, not theory. 

Quote:Catechism of St. Pius X
12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism? A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.
13 Q: Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it? A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.
Here we have more positive statements contradicting the notion of "hope."  It is clear that the common belief of the Church has always been that unbaptized babies do not go to heaven.  Not that there are theoretical means that possibly let them go to heaven.   Those means may exist in theory, but God does not use them.  We have no reason to hope He does.   








Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13