Posted on 06/06/2015 7:48:08 AM PDT by Salvation
Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
In post 10, I posted the teaching regarding unbaptized infants in the Baltimore Catechism. That would include murdered unbaptized infants/aborted unbaptized children as well. We can not assign Baptism of Blood to these children. Baptism of Blood is martyrdom for Christ and His Church. Are children aborted for Christ?
Now, technically, Fr. Harrison and Cardinal Ratzinger are agreed on one point: limbo was and remains just a hypothesis. The difference is that, according to Fr. Harrison, the only doctrinally permissible alternative for infants who die unbaptized is a mild form of hell, whereas for Cardinal Ratzinger, heaven is also a possibility. For if parents can “spare” children limbo by desire and prayer, what would they be sparing them for ? Cardinal Ratzinger’s view became common among Catholics after Vatican II, and it was at least acceptable among theologians even during Vatican II. The reasons for that needn’t detain us; the immediate issue is whether the reversal of thought on this subject is a reversal of doctrine, and for that reason erroneous.
The “common doctrine”—to use a technical classification—certainly was that infants who died unbaptized can never see God. Call that doctrine “NSG” for short. But, among Catholics, the question about such doctrines is always whether they have been infallibly taught . Fr. Harrison is careful not to say that NSG has been so taught. He knows it was never formally defined as a dogma by the “extraordinary magisterium” of councils or popes; all such dogmas, on a Catholic account, are infallibly defined. So, if there’s a case that NSG was infallibly taught, the argument must be that it was infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the bishops. And, to make such an argument, the criteria for affirming that form of infallibility must be clearly enunciated. Fr. Harrison doesn’t do that—even though such criteria exist.
In Lumen Gentium §25, the Second Vatican Council asserted: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” We know of at least one doctrine that Cardinal Ratzinger himself, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said meets that criterion: the doctrine that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” He argued that the doctrine has been infallibly set forth, according to the criterion stated by Vatican II, because it is “founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church.” Can that be said of NSG? Not really—which is probably why Fr. Harrison doesn’t say it. So, we may safely infer that the pope believes NSG may be dropped because God never preserved it from error to begin with.
It’s fair to ask: What’s the problem? The problem cannot be that the Church is in the process of abandoning a doctrine that hardly anybody ever liked anyway. The problem, for the Fr. Harrisons of the world, is simply that the Church is abandoning a doctrine . Catholics who call themselves “traditional” Catholics generally have a problem with Vatican II for doing precisely that on such issues as religious liberty and ecumenism. Their preferred stance for the Church is Semper idem , to use the slogan of one of their heroes, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. And now, faced with the pope’s attitude about limbo, some of them have another such grievance. That the content of the particular doctrine being abandoned is irrelevant to them is a sure sign of how seriously the grievance should be taken.
Bottom line: every Catholic should at least know that the only binding doctrines are those that have been defined dogmatically. Limbo hasn't been so defined. So Catholics are indeed permitted to continue to accept that doctrine, (Limbo) or trust in the mercy of God "who wills all men be saved" and thus that all aborted babies are in Heaven.
Yes, Limbo was a theory to explain where unbaptized infants went...because it was doctrine that they did not go to Heaven. So, yes, the former is not doctrine, but the latter is. The Church has taught that unbaptized infants can not go to Heaven through its ordinary and universal magisterium. To say that they can is a contradiction. Or did the Council of Trent teach error when it very clearly stated “infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism?
And no offense, but I’m not sure why I should follow what “Michael Liccione” concludes. Clearly he is a Vatican II anti-traditionalist.
LOL, so clearly since he accepts Vatican II, he *must* be "anti-traditionalist" right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
did the Council of Trent teach error when it very clearly stated “infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism?
I don't think it did, and that has little bearing on what we are talking about here since "infants" are not babies in the womb! As you said, or was it ebb tide, "Words mean things".
Besides, who's to say they don't enjoy some form of Baptism known only to God? You? Fr. Harrison? LeFebre? I don't think any of you are Pope or the councils in Union who him, so you'll excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt.
Believe what you want but don't you dare say to a Catholic mother (or any mother for that matter) that she isn't allowed to believe her miscarried baby is in Heaven. Because that's the logical extension of this discussion. Obviously you have never had to console a grieving mother who's baby miscarried. So believe what you want in your sterile "church", meanwhile the rest of us who live in the real world will believe otherwise. And we are free to do so, since Trent never spoke about the case of "aborted/miscarried" babies, only those who had the opportunity for some kind of Baptism.
It was clearly an exhortation to mothers everywhere that they should get their babies baptized as soon as possible. Otherwise they were in danger of not going to Heaven, because surely no one says that such children are *definitely* in Heaven. There's no way for the Church Universal to say that either. But the point is it's not for you or me to decide. It's God's choice and I prefer to trust in His Mercy.
I never said Limbo of the Unborn was dogma; it has been theory.
Have you heard of Limbo of the Fathers? Do you all deny that theory also?
Some people just don't realize that the more they talk, the more they make fools of themselves.
infant: Origin
Late Middle English: from Old French enfant, from Latin infant- 'unable to speak', from in- 'not' + fant- 'speaking' (from the verb fari).
How many talking unborn babies have you come across Forty-Seven?
My mother miscarried two babies (my siblings). Don't even dare lecture me about "grieving mothers". Such arrogance is astonishing!
I’m not sure why you addressed that verse to me.
Hi, Ebb! If you mean the Bosom of Abraham, no, Catholics don’t deny that. It’s in the Parable of the rich man and the beggar, akin to Paradise, where Jesus told the Good Thief he would be with Him that day. The should of men of God will went there, and, we believe, were taken up to Heaven with Jesus when He ascended into Heaven.
Thank you for your post: well-quoted, well-stated. God bless you!
No, actually it was his condescending tone about our "hero" Cardinal Ottaviani and putting quotes in the word "traditionalist". But you wouldn't catch that, would you?
I think it is incredibly naïve for any Catholic to believe that the Council of Trent only considered born babies. Let's see what Pius XII had to say in his "Allocution to Midwives" in 1951:
If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.
I think I'll stick with the pre-Vatican II pope who knows, believes and teaches the Traditional Catholic Faith.
My mother miscarried two babies (my siblings). Don't even dare lecture me about "grieving mothers". Such arrogance is astonishing!
I wouldn't even bother with the emotional reaction to this topic. It sounds like Pope Pius XII never consoled a grieving mother who lost her baby in miscarriage either. Of course, he probably would explain that, although the child was not in Heaven, it also was not in Hell. Rather that it was in a place like Limbo and not suffering.
This is the bottom line here. The real horror of abortion is minimized with the belief that the unborn can get to Heaven. If we think that the unborn can get to Heaven despite the fact that they are in original sin, then abortion isn't quite as bad.
My mother miscarried two babies (my siblings). Don't even dare lecture me about "grieving mothers". Such arrogance is astonishing!
I apologize, I did speak arrogantly and also rashly there.
Just an observation: His Holiness was directing his remarks to midwives. Babies were born at home, birth and infant death were common. It was often the midwife who had the capacity to Baptize at crucial moments. To this day, it is part of the policy/procedure manuals of Catholic facilities on how to Baptize validly.
If a baby is aborted, it is because God's Will is permissive, as well as ordinative. It is not the fault of the child is dismembered in the womb. Does He then, create that child and give them a soul, with the intent that the soul never sees Him?
Further, the procedures of in vitro fertilization were nonexistent in Pope Pius' time. John Paul lived in a much different scientific world. A sheep was cloned with the intent of eventual human cloning.
Again, we agree to disagree, but in context, he was addressing midwives with their responsibility to Baptize in certain situations. Now we have centers throughout the world where no one objects to this slaughter- rather, it is promoted, and with the mother's approval. Further, as the child is dismembered, or the brain suctioned out, what of the body is left to Baptize? It is a physical impossibility. That soul may have original sin, and the body incapable of living on its own, but doesn't the soul cry out for mercy nonetheless? Who is able to hear that soul but its Father, Redeemer, and the Spirit that makes it"thirst for the Living God"?
Life begins at conception. A conceived human being in the zygotic phase is impossible to Baptize- they possess a soul nonetheless. Would Pius in his time imagine such things? He lived in horrible times, but this is a different kind of situation. Baptism just isn't possible at times. Perhaps, seeing the abominations these immortal souls of helpless, tortured, unborn babies would evoke in him the same Spirit that moved the Pope who made the Feast of the Holy Innocents, children age 2 and under.
Again, Pius XII clearly makes mention of the unborn because the unborn is included in Traditional Catholic teaching regarding the unbaptized. The circumstances under which the unborn die is irrelevant: whether miscarriage or abortion. Just as the circumstances under which an unbaptized infant dies: whether dying naturally or being murdered (unless the child is murdered for Christ as were the Holy Innocents: then they will have been baptized with the Baptism of Blood; aborted children are not killed for Christ, so one can not assign Baptism of Blood to them).
Here is yet another Catholic pope speaking on the fate of unborn children. In fact, Pope Sixtus V speaks specifically of aborted children:
For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God's image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature. Pope Sixtus V, Effrænatam, 29 October 1588
THIS is the Catholic teaching, not the teaching presented in the JPII Catechism.
Thank-you.
And I noticed that Pope Sixtus V specifically mentioned “unborn infants”, contrary to what some define as “infants”.
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.