Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: bornacatholic; Hermann the Cherusker
Look, thousands are going after him and using Fr. C. as the hammer to try and beat him into submitting to their personal opinions about something never defined.

Huh? Where are these "thousands"? I had no idea that there were mobs outside the Vatican protesting in favor of limbo while demanding the Pope sack the preacher of the papal household and "submit" to the doctrine of limbo. Can we see some news articles about this?

I never said anything about how the unbaptized dead (presumably you mean those dying without the use of reason) must be in the limbus puerorum. I think that limbo is the most valid theological hypothesis for where they go, but, as Bishop Hay said (and I already agreed with): "As for what becomes of such unbaptized children, divines are divided in their opinions about it; some say one thing, some another; but as God Almighty has not been pleased to reveal it to His Church, we know nothing for certain about it." So limbo, as an answer to where the children go if not to heaven, is only a well-grounded theological hypothesis.

We know that, at least ordinarily, they don't go to heaven. We know that, contrary to what is said here and elsewhere, men need the grace of Christ to go to heaven. We know that Trent anathematized anyone who says "that [infants] are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining of life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false ..." (Session 5, Canon 4 on Original Sin) We know that Carthage XVI defined that without baptism, infants "cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, which is life eternal," and we know that the Holy Office has warned that no trust should be placed in theories about the salvation of little children without baptism:

The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature, a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible [. . .]

So, please, give your own "personal interpretation of tradition." How does "lacking solid foundation" equate to "should be taught and preached publicly"? How is the dogma that infants derive original sin from Adam "which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining of life everlasting" compatible with the theory that if infants make no personal choice against God, they go to heaven, and it's "Calvinist" to say otherwise? How does the doctrine that without baptism, infants "cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, which is life eternal" fit with the "affirmation that unbaptized children will not go to limbo but to heaven"? These are questions that have been asked on this thread, and no attempt has even been made to provide an answer.

Instead we are told, and falsely, that the Pope has approved the same opinions the Holy Office called "lacking solid foundation," and that by admitting hope for the salvation of infants in the Catechism and reinforcing the urgent necessity of infant baptism, he actually meant to approve the doctrine that infant baptism is in no wise necessary for salvation and that all little children certainly go to heaven if they die before attaining the use of free-will. We are told that the Greek Fathers did not believe original sin excluded from heaven, as if the East held a different faith from the West. But nowhere has it been attempted to show that a "personal interpretation of tradition" is even possible to justify these unjustifiable affirmations, which, if preached and taught widely, would endanger the salvation of many children by downplaying the necessity of baptism. "For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 4 on Original Sin) Personally interpret that, if you will.

123 posted on 02/01/2006 3:40:02 PM PST by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]


To: gbcdoj
Huh? Where are these "thousands"? I had no idea that there were mobs outside the Vatican protesting in favor of limbo while demanding the Pope sack the preacher of the papal household and "submit" to the doctrine of limbo

*Check Daily Catholic, Angelqueen, Catholic Family News, The Remnnat, SSPX, all the "trad" sites.

125 posted on 02/01/2006 3:45:04 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson