Posted on 07/01/2017 4:43:01 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
...In a statement issued at noon today, the Vatican said the Holy Father “thanked the Most Eminent Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller at the end of his five-year mandate as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission...”
There was no announcement of a new appointment for the German cardinal.
...rare for a cardinal prefect not to have his mandate renewed...
Born...on the island of Majorca, Spain, Archbishop Ladaria is known to be a kind, affable and theologically conservative prelate who has a special interest in patristics, the branch of theology that deals with the lives, writings, and doctrines of the early Christian theologians...
He also said does not like “extremisms, either progressive, or traditionalist ones” but believes “there is a via media” which is the “correct path to take, even if each of us has his own peculiarities, because, thanks be to God, we do not repeat, we are not clones.”
In the same interview, he underlined the role of the CDF which is first about “promoting and then, if necessary, protecting” the faith. He added that the Congregation “always moves with discretion and speaks exclusively through its acts.”
The Spanish prelate has publicly said little, if anything, about the Pope’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia... How he will deal with the thorny issue of interpreting the document is therefore unclear, but as a Jesuit and given his personality, he is expected to take a less disputed position than that of his predecessor...
Having a Jesuit in charge may help bring it in from the cold, but some will feel uneasy about having two members of the Society of Jesus holding the two most senior positions in the Church...
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
For the record, I think the Catechism of Pope John Paul II with respect to unbaptized infants reflects a view of original sin that reflects the consensus of the early Church (both Latin and Greek) and does not rely overly on one Church Father in this case, Saint Augustine and Limbo for unbaptized infants (who got most things correct, and I am a big fan).
I think an Eastern Orthodox would now see our views of baptism and unbaptized infants as reflecting the common theological tradition of the Church in the first 1,000 years.
I also think the current view of unbaptized infants is more in line with Seeing it consistent with who God is a perfect Communion of love, and while I believe in God’s Justice, I think his Mercy is eternally greater.
Thank you for confirming my recollection. I think there is a solid logic behind the Church’s dogma but this topic could use its own thread. I didn’t want to take us off topic. I’ll PM you.
Correct. So, if a parent wished their child to be baptized, there shouldn’t be a problem in carrying it out...priest or no priest.
The Holy Innocents were martyrs because they were killed in place of the Christ Child. Aborted children are not killed for the Faith or for Christ. They're just killed. In addition, the Holy Innocents never had baptism as an option because at that time, the Church had not been born yet and there was no sacrament of baptism under the New Law.
I think the real horror of abortion is ignored when we do not recognize the fact that there is a REAL possibility that these children do go to Hell. If they go to Heaven anyway, then why should we care that these babies are aborted? They get to go to Heaven! The only thing that dies is their bodies. That is not the real crime here.
piusv:
There is a possibility for anyone to go to hell. So that would include aborted children, who have souls, as well as those who were born. So yes, it is possible they could go to hell. Who knows what there souls do or do not do if given a chance to believe or not believe. I think we can’t ever definitively answer that question.
If the Eastern Tradition of the Church can be criticized for anything, it is the failure to define things and allow things to be referred to as Holy Mystery and thus most of the crazy heresies in the early Church were from the East.
If the Latin Church (West) can be criticized for anything, it was the Medieval Latin Church’s attempt to define everything rather than leaving some areas of theology to being Mystery
In my view, (and that is all it is) the fate of aborted and unbaptized infants, both below the age of reason, is one of those areas that can never be Formally defined in way that is consistent with other Doctrines like Trinity and Christological Doctrines on the Person of Christ. Thus, I think attempts by the Latin Church, while motivated in good faith, is not something we can know with certainty this side of heaven. Thus, leave it in the realm of theological opinion and speculation.
We should care for those that are aborted because it creates a further culture that is against life, hence, murder, violence, terrorism, in some metaphysical way, are all related to a culture of death, which as Sacred Scripture and Tradition says, is a result of Sin and is from the evil one.
So for a Catholic to not stand up for the innocent and most vulnerable (unborn children) would be a serious sin of omission, I think you would agree with that. Not doing so only furthers the culture of death as the late Pope John Paul II called it.
But the Holy Innocents were indeed viewed as Martyrs even though they did not consciously know they were not rejecting Christ in the face of Death, such as Saint Polycarp, SS. Perpetua and Felicity, etc, who even if they were not Baptized with the Sacrament, would have been baptized in blood as martyrs.
So I think they can be seen as correlated and related to each other, albeit indirectly.
piusv:
We agree that parents in an emergency may administer the Sacrament of Baptism. I am well aware of that. However, what if a child is intensive care and dies before the parents can do so. What happens to a child whose parents are lapsed Catholics or Orthodox or Protestants, etc and thus some children get baptized and some don’t.
Too me, and this is just me, a Doctrine so rigid as above is correlated with the notion of Absolute Double Predestination, which you I think would agree is not compatible with official Catholic Church Doctrine since the Council of Orange in the 6th Century AD.
And I resent your derogation of the TLM by referring to it as “SSPX type”. It just verifies my suspicions that despite your screen name, you're a modernist.
That is correct and that is what the Church has alway taught until Ladira's study ruled out the uncertainty.
ebb tide:
You are making inferences that are incorrect. I have no problem with the Tridentine Form of the Roman Rite. I think when it is done with Chant, it is a most reverent and beautiful Liturgy. I think the Normal Roman Rite is too simple and lacks the elegance of the Older Roman Rite and some of the Eastern Liturgies. However, I do not believe it is an invalid Rite.
I go to a Novo Ordo Roman Rite parish that incorporated traditional Greek (Kyrie) and Latin Chants (Agnus Dei, Gloria) and chants the Propers for the day, both entrance and communion.
In no post did I make derogatory statements regarding the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. You are factually incorrect.
My comparison was an implicit one, as I said, not direct, that they are not inconsistent with each other.
ebb tide:
I think the Church position now is to say we don’t know and leave it to the Providential Mercy/Justice of God. All we can do is Hope that somehow God saves them.
I just don’t get how getting into a tit for tat over Limbo for infants, which is nowhere directly taught in Sacred Scripture but an extension to the Limbo of the Fathers (Bosom of Abraham) which was explicitly taught in Scripture. So we do know there is evidence of an intermediate state at least at sometime before Christ Resurrection.
Do know if there were infants there? Scripture does not say. Do we know they were not there, does not say. So using the Scripture alone can’t answer the question (not to pick a fight with the sola scriptura’s here).
Sacred Tradition has different views on it, Limbo of infants is one of them and as I said given its foundation started with Saint Augustine, it carried a heavy weight on Latin Theology down through the centuries.
So while it was taught as a plausible doctrine by the Church, thus the faithful should receive it with reverence, it was never formally defined as De Fide Doctrine in any Church Council or by formal Papal Proclamation.
Yes, Popes throughout the centuries spoke of Limbo, some did not, as it was as I said a plausible teaching that was presumed to be the best explanation possible but it never was defined in manner similar to the Creedal definitions in the Nicene Creed for example.
Why did you have to toss in the SSPX in your false implication that souls of the unborn may not be prayed for at TLM’s?
Now you're sounding like a Protestant: sola scriptura.
The following are excerpts from Ladaria's mondernist study:
In the contemporary context of cultural relativism and religious pluralism the number of non-baptized infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent.
....
In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”,[88] the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.
...
Increased travel and contact among people of different faiths and the great increase of dialogue between people of different religions have encouraged the Church to develop a greater awareness of the manifold and mysterious ways of God (cf. NA 1, 2), and of her own mission in this context
All modernist statements concerned with "contemporary" times.
ebb tide:
It is not taught explicitly, it is only taught implicitly as it related to the Limbo of the Fathers (Bosom of Abraham) and the Limbo of the Fathers. I also said that from Sacred Tradition, you can’t get a consensus on the fate of unbaptized infants. SO what you have is an implicit reference in Scripture, at best, and a lack of consensus among the Latin and Greek Church Fathers of the early Church. Do you disagree?
ebb tide:
I was only making a point. If you are praying for the souls of the unborn at Mass, whatever form of the Roman Rite that you attend, then you are praying with the theological virtue of “Hope” that the unborn may be saved and are not defacto doomed to Hell worst case scenario or in the Limbo world view, at best in Limbo of the infants.
So by the fact you pray for the unborn you are praying and hoping that in ways only known to God, those unborn infants “may be saved”. I think if you read the Catechism of the late Pope John Paul II, that is in substance of what it says.
Now, you would rather that catechism also mention that is possible that the unborn infants like the unbaptized infants end up perhaps in Limbo. That is a legitimate point of view since I am fully aware it has been taught as a theological opinion of the Latin Church since Saint Augustine, but the Church in this case, not you, not me, is the final authority in determining what is the most plausible theological opinion to teach the entire faithful in an area that is not Formally defined as binding, i.e. the case of unbaptized infants, of which I include the unborn among.
ebb tide:
I was not ridiculing the SSPX. I know they pray the TLM, but whether or not they pray for the unborn, I actually do not know since I have never been to TLM Liturgy at the SSPX.
I have been to a Modern Roman Rite, some very banal guitar nonsense (I had no choice given where I was living at the time as I was in Graduate School in early 1990’s and the Newman Center had the guitar type folks doing the music who are all holdovers from the 70’s), most more of High Mass form of it with the propers for the day chanted, Greek Kyrie, and Latin Agnus Dei, Gloria, etc.
I have also been to Maronite Rite Liturgy.
I did say that the HI could be considered martyrs, but not the unborn. I also explained that you can’t compare the fact that the HI died with out baptism with the unborn who die without baptism because there was no Church and no Sacrament of Baptism in the times of the HI. Many like to point to the HI for support that the unborn are saved, but it is a false comparison.
piusv:
Fair enough, but I did state that we can based on theological virtue of Hope, pray that God does save them in ways only known to Him. That is substance all I was ever saying. The Catechism promulgated by John Paul II takes that as its theological view on the question, rather than Limbo.
Now, saying Limbo is no longer a valid hypothesis is another matter. And again, when Cardinal Ratzinger said drop it, what exactly did he mean? No longer teach it a the most plausible theological view (as it was since Saint Augustine’s time, he died in 430 AD) or by Drop mean it is no longer considered even remotely plausible as a theological view.
I admit, I have to read the entire quote to determine what was being said or what was not being said.
Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
Do not be mistaken, unborn/unbaptized babies are not in the Church if they are not baptized. They remain in original sin. Anyone in original sin (whether in utero or 99 years old when they die) goes to Hell.
Why would God give us the Church and its teachings if He is going to go against His Church and His teachings at every turn? I think it's high time for Catholics to return to the main focus: salvation of souls.
It seems since Vatican II the focus has been: let's see how many non-Catholics (cute little babies or otherwise) can still get in Heaven's door without baptism and/or conversion to the Holy Catholic Faith.
It's maddening.
piusv:
I do admire your steadfastness on these matters, but don’t be more Catholic than Magisterium. Quanto Conficiamur does have a quote that speaks of invincible ignorance, which I agree some in the Post Vatican II period have make almost a sacrament itself, which is an error. I don’t have the exact quote but it does put those who would said to be laboring in invincible ignorance into 2 groups, those who live morally (say non-Catholics) and others (non-religious)follow the natural law. These people have received some type of Grace and are ready to receive Christ and the Church if presented in a charitable manner correctly etc.
The relevant paragraph is #7
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
So is it not possible that unborn infants are the most invincibly ignorant. I am aware that invincible ignorance is explicitly speaking on humanity above the age of reason. So yes, being in original sin means lacking God’s Grace, but who knows what the Souls of Unborn infants can understand or reject if presented with the opportunity to believe in Christ or Not.
You and I don’t know the answer to that but if the Soul is alive then in the spiritual realm, could God not provide them a chance to believe in him and thus be baptized in blood since they are being aborted.
Baptized in Blood means martyrdom. Stop saying the unborn qualify for that. They don’t.
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.