do not hinder them
The cartoon actually softens things: not only did she rob these children of their right to life, she deprived them of the chance for eternal beatitude by killing them before they were baptized. If only they could pray for her, but alas.
another sicko Democrat - but they "care" about people!
Children who die before Baptism are not deprived of the chance of eternal beatitude.THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISEDInternational Theological Commission"Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church." (no 103)http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
We've been through this debate before, Anonymous, so it is useless to have it again. I'll summarize: You cited a non-magisterial document that is proximate to heresy. Whereas, orthodox Catholics have the entire body of Catholic teaching and praxis throughout history.
"1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."Catechism of the Catholic ChurchMagisterial. Unless, of course, you consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be heretical.
Before we get lost in the side debate about unbaptized infants, let's get back to the real problem: Celebrity hacks for the Culture of Death.Alyssa Milano is not unique. If anyone took her to task today for the kind of life she has led, the criticizer, not Alyssa, would be called out for "slut shaming". But face it--that's what she is. And that's what most of the luminaries of our celebrity culture are, be they male or female. Their refusal to observe any kind of moral norms or play by the rules has trickled down to the rest of us and now we have so many people who shack up or hook up or marry multiple times (making their vows meaningless) that those who actually try to live a moral life are either mocked or looked upon as mentally ill. This didn't happen overnight. It happened step by step with the wonderful concept of tolerance. We have tolerated ourselves into a position that is intolerable. Alyssa Milano is just a symptom. The vast majority of us who are too weak to stand for anything (myself included) are the problem. Like so much other garbage we put up with today, we allowed it to happen. Now we have the audacity to say we are shocked?
The Council of Florence teaches the necessity of baptism explicitly. Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei condemns the proposition that denies the existence of the Limbo of the infants. Pope Sixtus V in Effraenatam, taught that aborted children are excluded from the Beatific Vision. St. Thomas Aquinas taught the unbaptized cannot be saved. St. Augustine taught the same. It is evident this is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not, in itself, magisterial. Catechisms are only magisterial when they are restating a magisterial teaching. The Catechism does not purport to do so in this instance. And it could not because the magisterial teaching -- as evidenced by the Council of Florence, the teaching of the popes, and the teachings of the Doctors -- is that unbaptized infants cannot be saved. The liturgical tradition and the praxis of the Church throughout the ages also indicates the truth of this doctrine in that the intercession of unbaptized infants is not sought and neither are masses said for the repose of their souls. The First Vatican Council teaches dogmatically that the faithful are bound to believe the Catholic faith "in the same sense and in the same meaning" as the Church has always taught. To the extent the Catechism says something inconsistent with the magisterial teaching or, at least, does not state the teaching clearly, it is unreliable.Furthermore, reason dictates the necessity of this teaching because one cannot hold that unbaptized infants are saved without denying the doctrine of Original Sin. And that is what makes denial of this teaching proximate to heresy.
The Catechism is, in itself, Magisterial.From the USCCB: "The Catechism is part of the Church's ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it. Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium. In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and "a sure and authentic reference text." He asked "the Church's pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life.""The Catechism does not purport to do so in this instance." By his authority, Pope John Paul II said it does restate magisterial teaching. See above quote."To the extent the Catechism says something inconsistent with the magisterial teaching or, at least, does not state the teaching clearly, it is unreliable."As a non-Bishop you do not possess the authority to declare what is and what is not inconsistent with magisterial teaching. Your ability to read does not constitute ANY magisterial authority. Grace, whether through the Sacrament of Baptism or through God's gracious bestowal, can overcome the damage or Original Sin One need not deny Original Sin in order to say that God can choose to welcome into Eternal Beatitude those who die without Baptism.
Goodness. I’m not having this silly conversation again. Take care, Anonymous.
There's nothing silly about recognizing that the Magisterium of the Church, not an individual Catholic, has the authority to determine what is and what is not part of the Church's teaching.The only silliness here is that an individual Catholic, for whatever misguided reason(s), determines that he possesses the authority to make that determination. That is precisely what Martin Luther, Henry VIII, and other did that tore the Church apart.
Let's get this straight -- your argument is based on your reading of the Catechism and some non-magisterial document. My argument is based on my reading of an Ecumenical Council, popes, and saints.Both of us are reading and drawing conclusions. You say you are right because you are citing what you believe is magisterial. I say I am right because I am citing what I believe is magisterial. There is no distinction between my citations and yours except the underlying question of which source is actually magisterial. The answer to that is simple: Ecumenical Councils and popes are magisterial, while Catechisms are not (except when they are citing the teachings of Ecumenical Councils and popes).If you wish to deny the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, papal documents, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, the constant teaching of the Church throughout the centuries, and the witness of Catholic liturgy throughout history, that is your prerogative. To suggest that someone who won't join you in rejecting that overwhelming authority is akin to Martin Luther is pretty funny, though. But, yeah, I'm sure it's me who is tearing the Church apart by my firm adherence to the constant teaching...
No, it is not my reading that I am setting up against yours. In my post at 1:26 when I cited Pope John Paul II's "reading" of the Tradition.I will refresh your memory: "In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and "a sure and authentic reference text."The Holy Father, Bishop of Rome, "by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Christian Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" and is the highest Magisterial official.He, not I, has made it abundantly clear to those who wish to know Catholic Truth that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a reliable source.So now, I hope you've got it straight.
It is exactly your reading that you are setting against the constant teaching of the Church. More particularly, you are setting up your reading John Paul II -- along with your errant understanding of "magisterium" -- against a solemn definition from an Ecumenical Council and the infallible universal ordinary magisterium of the Church. You are rejecting the constant teaching of the saints, including doctors of the Church. The Holy Fathers, the Bishops of Rome, personally and following an Ecumenical counsel have exercised their authority over the universal Church and taught as I have stated. You overtly reject that which you rightly say is the "highest Magisterial" teaching.So did Martin Luther, Henry VIII, and the other heretics err as you say that I am -- by adhering to the teachings of the popes and councils -- or did they err as you are -- by adhering to novelty? The answer is plain. We know from an ecumenical council's dogmatic definition that the Church's teaching cannot contradict itself. By asserting your novelty, even if you have recourse to a non-magisterial catechism in support, you violate this principle. A novelty is a novelty, even if its a novelty found in a catechism, which unlike the universal ordinary magisterium is fallible.There is nothing more to say about this issue: Your claim is based on your reading a single catechism that completely lacks magisterial authority. My claim is based on the constant teaching of the Church throughout centuries, which is of faith, infallible, and unchangeable. We are at an impasse -- you will not convince me to reject the faith. Any other people reading this can decide for themselves with the illumination from the Holy Ghost.
"It is exactly your reading that you are setting against the constant teaching of the Church."Nope. It is the words of Pope John Paul II, not my reading of his words. "In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and "a sure and authentic reference text." You reject the words of the Holy Father because you imagine that you have greater authority than the Bishop of Rome.The Catechism is Magisterial. "The Catechism is part of the Church's ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it. Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium."You reject the authority of the Catechism because you reject what is taught in the Catechism. Plain and simple.Yes, the answer is plain. You will continue to assert that you have the authority to determine what is magisterial and what is not, what is consistent with the Church's doctrine and what is not.You don't.
"It is exactly your reading that you are setting against the constant teaching of the Church."It is the words of Pope Pius VI, Sixtus V, and the Council of Florence not my reading of their words. In Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI condemned the proposition that denies the existence of the Limbo of the infants. Sixtus V likewise, as well as the Council of Florence.You reject the words of the Holy Fathers and an Ecumenical Council because you imagine that you have greater authority than the Bishop of Rome and a Council.Pius VI is magisterial. Sixtus V is magisterial. An Ecumenical Council is magisterial. You reject the authority of the popes and an Ecumenical Council because you reject what they teach. Plain and simple.Yes, the answer is plain. You will continue to assert that you have the authority to determine what is magisterial and what is not, what is consistent with the Church's doctrine and what is not.You don't.
Marc says that, according to his reading of the Church's Tradition, Limbo must be believed, and to deny the existence of Limbo is to "reject the faith."Pope Benedict says that, according to his reading of the Church's Tradition, "Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith, and I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism."I will take as my teacher in the faith the Pope, the Vicar of Rome, the Successor of Peter.
I’ll take as my teachers in the faith St. Thomas, St. Augustine, the Holy Fathers of the Council of Florence, and all the popes, the Vicars of Christ, the Successors of Peter, since the Church teaches dogmatically in Council that doctrine can not change and holds the same meaning throughout all time. Denial of a “secondary truth,” the denial of which undermines a truth “of first significance” is the very definition of an assertion proximate to heresy.
Abortion, sodomy, free money for everybody, medical care for all, gays in schools and colleges, bestiality, tolerance for every ethnic & religious group, open borders, watered down-liturgy, free speech and free media for every pervert, no fault-divorce, homeless shelters next door to churches and day cares, political correctness, “Me Too,” immigration for all, thank you “Moderate Catholics” of America.
Regarding what the Council of Florence "taught" regarding Limbo: (From the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent) "Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence [on Limbo], it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards."Though it is mentioned and discussed, it was not the intention of the Council of Florence to define Limbo as a Catholic doctrine. "Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo,..."Limbo is a "notion" that Catholics may or may not believe. It is not defined by Florence as Catholic teaching.If you take as teacher, "... all the popes, the Vicars of Christ, the Successors of Peter..." what do you do with Pope Benedict? It seems to me that you must reject his position as Pope. Is that the case?
"Denial of a “secondary truth,”..." is not what Pope Benedict wrote.Pope Benedict wrote, "It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth..."A "thesis" is not a "truth."
Post a Comment