Posted on 06/06/2015 7:48:08 AM PDT by Salvation
I have had these before. Once someone telling me a close friend would be converted, and it wasn’t my job, but someone in heaven was working on it. And he was converted. Called me to tell me, in fact, a year or so later. He became a Catholic.
I know they are meaningful but I am always careful not to give them the same veracity as those things that believers all accept as the word of God. I share them sometimes but only when guided to do so and when I am sure I am doing ao without any selfish motivation.
I have thought that if the Church were to plead to God that all those who die before birth be accepted as members of the Church, this ought to have effect. At least celebrate the rite of Christian burial for these anonymous souls.
“I was told that this is no longer Catholic teaching.”
So, because it is no longer taught that means it is not true? Was it true when it was taught? Or was it in error and something else is taught and that is true?
It’s pretty tough for men to try to interpret the God’s will. Although many have tried.......BTW. Where is “limbo” mentioned in the Bible?
Personally, I believe that my God is a loving God and as such would welcome unborn children into his kingdom. But what do I know. Then again I haven’t taught one thing for years and then gone back and taught something else....
I was told by a priest, so that could very well be his reading of Vatican II documents. It wasn’t a declaration of the pope. “Limbo” could very well describe the emerging of the truth on this question: the truth was waiting for further revelation. Think of it that way, maybe, instead of it once being true and now it isn’t or that the Church made an error. It was the doctrine that was in limbo, perhaps, not the children.
Wondering who added all the keywords?????
Consideration was given to the matter in light of our modern era where a child is legally murdered in its mother's womb, as were the Holy Innocents killed by Herod (The later had been proclaimed Saints by the Church, with a feast day). They die in the baptism of blood, as martyrs.
Those who have the chance to be born, but are stillborn and die without Baptism, are in Heaven by the Baptism of Desire "My Soul is thirsting for the Living God." Again, the Church does remain emphatic that children are Baptised as soon as possible after birth.
If the shoe fits......:)
Are you serious? Baptism is not necessary? What are your views on abortion?
Baptism is commanded in the course of ordinary events. But do you really believe if one accepts Christ on their deathbed and there is no time for baptism that person is not saved? It is Christ that saves.
My views on abortion? It is an abomination. The blood of the aborted children cries out to God the same way Abel’s blood did. Murder is murder no matter the age of the one murdered. To do violence to one of God’s little ones is a grievous sin indeed.
I heard Roman Catholic teaching never changes.
It's not up to you declare that. And it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching.
[Fr]Harrison point outs, correctly, that there is no previous magisterial statement to the same effect as CCC §1261. He notes that the only previous “universal” Catholic catechism, that of the Council of Trent, “affirmed categorically” that “no means for attaining salvation remains for infant children other than baptism.” In support of the Tridentine teaching, Harrison cites one older magisterial statement (a letter of Pope Innocent I in 417), and three subsequent statements of magisterial import. The weightiest is from the Provincial Council of Cologne (1860), not because it was a local council, but because its acts were confirmed by the Holy See and contain the statement “faith teaches [ fides docet ]” that infants who die without baptism, “since they are not capable of this desire [for baptism], are excluded from the heavenly kingdom.”
That happens when the baby takes its first breath of air...Of course that narrative doesn't appeal to many people...
The bible says that where there is no knowledge of the law no sin has been committed...Because sin is the knowledge of the law...And of course babies are not aware of the law so they do not sin...
Babies are indwelt with 'original sin'...The consequences of that are a hard life and death at the end...
There is nothing in the scriptures that even hints at babies going to some ridiculous Limbo or not going to heaven...
There are only two choices...Heaven or Hell...Babies do not commit sin so they are not going to hell...And heaven is the only other option...
The Catholic heirchy can not admit that since many people would come out from under the bondage the Catholic religion puts them in and would stop getting their babies baptized in fear that they would go to hell if they died first... In a generation or two, the Catholic religion would dwindle to nothing without the cradle Catholics...
The Council of Trent is often used in forum, yet there has been a great deal of history; papal documents and the Second Vatican Council since then... What about the Holy Innocents? They were Jewish, yet we celebrate them as our saints...
From: Lumen Gentium: "Light of Nations"
The Second Vatican Council speaks of salvation outside the Church in Lumen Gentium, nos. 14 and 16. Here are the pertinent sections from those two articles: 14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. [. . .] 16. [. . .] Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” — C. S. Lewis
Great quote. Thank you.
Exactly.
They had the Baptism of Blood, not Desire.
Calling Catholic teaching “absurd” is disrespectful, so I would like to know whether you are a Prot taking a shot at the Catholic religion or a Catholic who truly just doesn’t understand what the Church taught traditionally. the former I don’t bother with...the latter I would gladly explain (although it appears others have done so already).
And what was the comment “chicken” for? Because I didn’t respond to you at your command? I have been out of town and have just gotten back to my laptop.
My apologies to you oh8eleven. I see the “Chicken” comment was from null and void. Null and void should read my previous post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.