The Catholic Encyclopedia on "Outside the Church, No Salvation"
#31
(02-15-2014, 12:35 PM)Gidge Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:15 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"Gidge" Wrote:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Since one can not receive the Flesh of the Son of Man outside the church, EENS stands.
If it were absolutely and totally necessary for salvation to receive Eucharist then we Latins should be punished severely for separating the baptism and the first communion of infants.

Our Lord said it, ergo, it IS true.  Is there some modern theologian who knows better than HIM, I think not !

Baptism is the gateway to all the other sacraments (One baptism, not three) and in the Latin church we need to be at the age of reason to receive communion.

I wouldn't think EENS would be such a hot topic on a traditional blog.  ???
So did theologians before the 20th century believe that infants who were baptised but did not receive the Holy Communion (died, for example, at the age of 3) went to Hell? Yes or no.
Reply
#32
(02-15-2014, 12:41 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:35 PM)Gidge Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:15 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"Gidge" Wrote:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Since one can not receive the Flesh of the Son of Man outside the church, EENS stands.
If it were absolutely and totally necessary for salvation to receive Eucharist then we Latins should be punished severely for separating the baptism and the first communion of infants.

Our Lord said it, ergo, it IS true.  Is there some modern theologian who knows better than HIM, I think not !

Baptism is the gateway to all the other sacraments (One baptism, not three) and in the Latin church we need to be at the age of reason to receive communion.

I wouldn't think EENS would be such a hot topic on a traditional blog.  ???
So did theologians before the 20th century believe that infants who were baptised but did not receive the Holy Communion (died, for example, at the age of 3) went to Hell? Yes or no.

No.

Limbo is where unbaptized babies go, not the Hell of the damned.

How did we get from EENS to Limbo ?  CAF is that you ?  :LOL:
Reply
#33
(02-15-2014, 12:47 PM)Gidge Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:41 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:35 PM)Gidge Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:15 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"Gidge" Wrote:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Since one can not receive the Flesh of the Son of Man outside the church, EENS stands.
If it were absolutely and totally necessary for salvation to receive Eucharist then we Latins should be punished severely for separating the baptism and the first communion of infants.

Our Lord said it, ergo, it IS true.  Is there some modern theologian who knows better than HIM, I think not !

Baptism is the gateway to all the other sacraments (One baptism, not three) and in the Latin church we need to be at the age of reason to receive communion.

I wouldn't think EENS would be such a hot topic on a traditional blog.  ???
So did theologians before the 20th century believe that infants who were baptised but did not receive the Holy Communion (died, for example, at the age of 3) went to Hell? Yes or no.

No.

Limbo is where unbaptized babies go, not the Hell of the damned.

How did we get from EENS to Limbo ?  CAF is that you ?   :LOL:
Read my post again instead of LOLing.
Reply
#34
(02-15-2014, 12:48 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:47 PM)Gidge Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:41 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:35 PM)Gidge Wrote:
(02-15-2014, 12:15 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"Gidge" Wrote:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

Since one can not receive the Flesh of the Son of Man outside the church, EENS stands.
If it were absolutely and totally necessary for salvation to receive Eucharist then we Latins should be punished severely for separating the baptism and the first communion of infants.

Our Lord said it, ergo, it IS true.  Is there some modern theologian who knows better than HIM, I think not !

Baptism is the gateway to all the other sacraments (One baptism, not three) and in the Latin church we need to be at the age of reason to receive communion.

I wouldn't think EENS would be such a hot topic on a traditional blog.  ???
So did theologians before the 20th century believe that infants who were baptised but did not receive the Holy Communion (died, for example, at the age of 3) went to Hell? Yes or no.

No.

Limbo is where unbaptized babies go, not the Hell of the damned.

How did we get from EENS to Limbo ?  CAF is that you ?   :LOL:
Read my post again instead of LOLing.

I thought I was answering your post  -- you switched from EENS to Limbo (The same "Hell" that Our Lord descended to -- the limbo of the just, not the Hell of the damned)  ???

Is this what you are referring to ?

(02-14-2014, 01:38 PM)PolishTrad Wrote: The question is why, if such people existed, there are no stories of their conversion before death. If a holy man invincibly ignorant of the Church and Christ had an internal vision in which Christ would appear, then it would most probably make his closest environment convert as well. As far as I know there were no such events and balance of probabilities would suggest there should have been a few at least. Naturally it's for God to decide and asking questions such as mine may be seen as demanding an explanation from Him, but still if someone made an explicit act of faith in Christ while conscious, before the apparent death, wouldn't it be fruitful?

Only God knows is my answer to the above question.  God can do anything He wants to -- if he wants to save an ignorant native, certainly he can -- that's why we have the missions, after all.  I'll make use of the sacraments that the Church gives us and try my best to cooperate with grace.

Sorry if you are put off with the LOL, I think we're all on the same team here.
Reply
#35
"Gidge" Wrote:I thought I was answering your post  -- you switched from EENS to Limbo (The same "Hell" that Our Lord descended to -- the limbo of the just, not the Hell of the damned)  Huh?
I did not switch to Limbo. My reasoning was the following:
1) your argument was the quote: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
2) I replied that it cannot be understood absolutely because in the Latin Church baptised babies do not receive Communion. 99,9% of Roman Catholics wait at least 7 years from baptism to receive Our Lord for the first time
3) if the quote were to be understood in absolute terms, all these baptised babies would go to Hell, because they would not receive Our Lord, because they "should not have life in them".
4) I wrote: "So did theologians before the 20th century believe that infants who were baptised but did not receive the Holy Communion (died, for example, at the age of 3) went to Hell? Yes or no."
5) Then you wrote about Limbo, which is the penalty for unbaptised children.
6) Then you wrote " :LOL:". No offence taken, but I just wanted to make you read my post again where I wrote about baptised babies.

Is it clear now? :)

The second quote that you provided is my personal view of the issue but it was of no importance in this particular discussion - about the degree of necessity of Eucharist for salvation.
Reply
#36
(02-15-2014, 01:07 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"Gidge" Wrote:I thought I was answering your post  -- you switched from EENS to Limbo (The same "Hell" that Our Lord descended to -- the limbo of the just, not the Hell of the damned)  Huh?
I did not switch to Limbo. My reasoning was the following:
1) your argument was the quote: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
2) I replied that it cannot be understood absolutely because in the Latin Church baptised babies do not receive Communion. 99,9% of Roman Catholics wait at least 7 years from baptism to receive Our Lord for the first time
3) if the quote were to be understood in absolute terms, all these baptised babies would go to Hell, because they would not receive Our Lord, because they "should not have life in them".
4) I wrote: "So did theologians before the 20th century believe that infants who were baptised but did not receive the Holy Communion (died, for example, at the age of 3) went to Hell? Yes or no."
5) Then you wrote about Limbo, which is the penalty for unbaptised children.
6) Then you wrote " :LOL:". No offence taken, but I just wanted to make you read my post again where I wrote about baptised babies.

Is it clear now? :)

The second quote that you provided is my personal view of the issue but it was of no importance in this particular discussion - about the degree of necessity of Eucharist for salvation.

I suppose I am guilty of what I was accusing you of (switching topics midstream) mea culpa.   :blush:

My point is that if one stays outside the church they may have justification (as the prophets of old had, for example) but not salvation and, by extension,  may never receive Holy Communion.

(02-14-2014, 08:02 PM)salus Wrote: Long before everyone else , long before the SSPX , Father Leonard Feeney was warning the Church what was coming due to the sentimental theology concerning Outside the Church , No Salvation. When that dogma is not taken seriously the rest are easily played with to.

Amen.

The Church Fathers and Doctors agree.

http://catholicism.org/eens-fathers.html

Reply
#37
So a BAPTISED baby who never eats the Bread of Life and dies before the age of reason goes to Hell?
Reply
#38
That's what I got out og it, too !!

tim
Reply
#39
(02-18-2014, 04:12 PM)Old Salt Wrote: So a BAPTISED baby who never eats the Bread of Life and dies before the age of reason goes to Hell?

Without baptism, an infant enters the same hell Our Lord descended into after rising from the dead (Limbo of the just).

(02-18-2014, 06:23 PM)Tim Wrote: That's what I got out og it, too !!

tim

Sorry if St. John chapter 6 threw you off.
Reply
#40
"Gidge" Wrote:The same hell Our Lord descended into after rising from the dead (Limbo of the just).
So why should be rush to baptise babies if both baptised and unbaptised children who die before the age of go to Limbo and there's no difference here?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)