Church teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants
#51
Quote:This is flawed reasoning based on incomplete historical knowledge.  Eastern Catholics have traditionally postponed baptism until the 40th day after birth, to coincide with the re-churching of the mother.  This is not modernism, but the authentic Eastern tradition, even more traditional than the Latin idea of Limbo.  The fact that no comparative idea of Limbo has ever existed in the East is pretty strong evidence that it is merely a theological opinion and not a part of the deposit of faith.

It's not flawed reasoning.  Eastern traditions are often illogical and anti-scholastic, which caters nicely to the xenophobic mindset of superstitious peasants.  Who would take the baby out of the hands of its mother who is not allowed to go to Church or receive the sacraments for 40 days? 

And another pointed question:  were unbaptized dead babies buried in consecrated or unconsecrated ground in the Eastern tradition?

Reply
#52
(03-11-2010, 02:07 PM)Clare Wrote: No, the reason for baptising is not merely to make the child eligible to receive the other sacraments but to remove original sin. That is the point.

If original sin is not a barrier to admission into Heaven, then there is no need to baptise people before the age of reason, and the Church has it all wrong.

I never said baptism was merely for receiving the sacraments.  But it's not just to remove original sin, either.

(03-11-2010, 05:40 PM)PeterII Wrote: It's not flawed reasoning.  Eastern traditions are often illogical and anti-scholastic, which caters nicely to the xenophobic mindset of superstitious peasants.  Who would take the baby out of the hands of its mother who is not allowed to go to Church or receive the sacraments for 40 days? 

And another pointed question:  were unbaptized dead babies buried in consecrated or unconsecrated ground in the Eastern tradition?

Are they anti-scholastic?  Or are they just not scholastic enough for the Westerners that feel the need to be excessively scholastic comfortable with?  As far as where unbaptized Eastern babies were buried, that is a good question.  One I don't know the answer to.  Do you have the answer or do you not know either?
Reply
#53

Quote:Are they anti-scholastic?  Or are they just not scholastic enough for the Westerners that feel the need to be excessively scholastic comfortable with?  As far as where unbaptized Eastern babies were buried, that is a good question.  One I don't know the answer to.  Do you have the answer or do you not know either?

Rusalki, or baby water nymphs, were believed to be the souls of unbaptized babies.  I know that babies from either tradition were never buried in consecrated ground until 1969, when new rubrics were introduced; a complete novelty. 

We have a modernist theologian, Bernard Haring, a peritus at Vatican II who really pushed these novelties despite opposition from Ottaviani. 
Reply
#54
(03-11-2010, 09:19 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-11-2010, 02:07 PM)Clare Wrote: No, the reason for baptising is not merely to make the child eligible to receive the other sacraments but to remove original sin. That is the point.

If original sin is not a barrier to admission into Heaven, then there is no need to baptise people before the age of reason, and the Church has it all wrong.

I never said baptism was merely for receiving the sacraments.  But it's not just to remove original sin, either.

The point is that baptism is necessary to remove original sin, and the removal of original sin is necessary to enter Heaven. None of the other sacraments is so critical for someone who might die before the age of reason!
Reply
#55
(03-12-2010, 09:07 AM)Clare Wrote:
(03-11-2010, 09:19 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-11-2010, 02:07 PM)Clare Wrote: No, the reason for baptising is not merely to make the child eligible to receive the other sacraments but to remove original sin. That is the point.

If original sin is not a barrier to admission into Heaven, then there is no need to baptise people before the age of reason, and the Church has it all wrong.

I never said baptism was merely for receiving the sacraments.  But it's not just to remove original sin, either.

The point is that baptism is necessary to remove original sin, and the removal of original sin is necessary to enter Heaven. None of the other sacraments is so critical for someone who might die before the age of reason!

No, the point was that removal of original sin is not the only thing baptism is good for, because you suggested if unbaptized infants can go to heaven, there's no reason to baptize before the age of reason.
Reply
#56
(03-12-2010, 11:03 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-12-2010, 09:07 AM)Clare Wrote: The point is that baptism is necessary to remove original sin, and the removal of original sin is necessary to enter Heaven. None of the other sacraments is so critical for someone who might die before the age of reason!

No, the point was that removal of original sin is not the only thing baptism is good for, because you suggested if unbaptized infants can go to heaven, there's no reason to baptize before the age of reason.

I said there would be no urgent reason to baptise before the age of reason.

But there is. And eligibility to receive the other sacraments is not it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)