Pope Francis Appoints Spanish Jesuit Ladaria to Succeed Cardinal Müller

National Catholic Register ^ | July 1, 2017 | Edward Pentin

[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...

[ebb tide]

24 Reasons Why Not To Reject Limbo

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

Who exactly is John Vennari? I have all of the Canons from the 21 Church Councils the Catholic Church recognizes and have a list of all the Pope’s and I can’t find his name associated with any of that.

[ebb tide]

Your attempt at sarcasm is lame.

No one mentioned a Pope Vennari. But you apparently missed the quotes from St Robert Bellarmine, St Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius VI, Pope Sixtus V, Pope St Pius X or did you just choose to ignore them to defend your position?

[ebb tide]

Please check up on what I wrote because this is off the top of my head but I believe the substance of my post, even if off on a few particular’s, is correct.

I did check up; and you are not correct, you're in left field with the other modernists.

[ebb tide]

Given your screen name, I’m surprised you’re not familiar with Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Infants Receive The Graces Of Baptism

It may not be doubted that in Baptism infants receive the mysterious gifts of faith. Not that they believe with the assent of the mind, but they are established in the faith of their parents, if the parents profess the true faith; if not—to use the words of St. Augustine—then in that of the universal society of the saints; for they are rightly said to be presented for Baptism by all those to whom their initiation in that sacred rite is a source of joy, and by whose charity they are united to the communion of the Holy Ghost.

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

[ebb tide]

That said, however, the Theological Commission, considering together the revealed data and the universal salvific will of God and the universal mediation of Christ, wrote that there are more appropriate ways to address the issue of the fate of children who die without having received baptism, for whom a hope of salvation cannot be ruled out. These conclusions are not new to tell the truth, they originated around the time of the Council, but bring together the fruits of a very broad theological consensus today. Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer

Compare the Catechism of the Council of Trent to the universalist Ferrer.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

The Council of Trent said those who die in original sin would not merit heaven true. It did not say that if they were unbaptized (Did not receive the Baptism Sacramentally) that they died in original sin as The Council of Trent also spoke of baptism of desire and also I do believe baptism in blood.

Limbo for unbaptized infants may in fact be true. As I said, because Saint Augustine posited it, it is a very plausible theological opinion, but in the end that is all it is. It has never been formally defined as Doctrine to be held for all times and placed by any of the 21 Church Councils or Papal Dogmatic Letter. That is all I was stating earlier.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

Know I read the quotes. But again, you can’t specifically cite a Church Council that defines Limbo as doctrine nor can you find a Apostolic Letter similar to what was used to define the Assumption of Mary or the Immaculate Conception. If you can please cite it and give me a link to the primary source.

Limbo was a common teaching of the Church since the time of Saint Augustine. So while Saints Robert Bellarmine, Aquinas and the Popes you mention did write letters about it, that is not surprising as it was a “common teaching of the Church” and the teaching deserved to be received with reverence by the Faithful.

All I stated was that it was never defined de fide (of the faith) to be held from the moment it was defined for all times and places. I am not aware of any such pronouncement on Limbo. If you want to hold to Limbo, I think you are free to hold to it, as it is still a plausible theory as to the fate of the unbaptized infants.

Another theory, is that while “God is bound to His sacraments, God is not bound by them.” Thus, in ways only known to God, can the grace of baptism be made available to unbaptized infants in order that they may achieve heaven. That I think is also a plausible theory.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa in the East also wrote on early infants and baptism, there are other writings from ECF was well.

Now none of this means the Church should not go out and baptize and water down the faith to this notion of “universalism”.

[ebb tide]

I did quote a council:

>>9. “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation. …” Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 737 § 1. See also the Decrees from the Council of Trent on Justification and on Baptism.<<

Therefore, by your argument: if aborted, unbaptized babies can’t go the Heaven, and there is no Limbo, they go to Hell.

[ebb tide]

The Council of Trent also spoke of baptism of desire and also I do believe baptism in blood.

You apparently don't understand the necessary conditions for these two forms of baptism because you, like other modernists, apply them in a universal sense as applicable to all.

[ebb tide]

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

Catholic Encyclopedia

However, Ladaria, the universalist, preaches otherwise.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

Let’s take baptism of desire, what if you have two infants in a different hospital both in serious medical conditions. Both sets of parents have desire for the baptism of their children. Both call a priest to administer the sacrament of baptism. One child dies before the priest can administer baptism the other child does not.

One child goes to heaven one to hell. the arbitrariness of that situation is akin to double predestination, which is btw also condemned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Orange in the 6th century.

I am not prepared to say what happens to the child who was not officially baptized, by some means the desire of the parents for baptism may constitute a legitimate form of “baptism of desire” as it is the desire of the parents to have an infant baptized which gets a child sacramentally baptized.

As for aborted children, that is a subject that is beyond my pay grade and likely yours as well.

[CTrent1564]

ebb tide:

Yes, they are affirming the necessity of baptism. I am not denying that. What I am saying is that baptism normatively is with Water and Holy Trinity in the Church. There 2 other forms of baptism, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, which the same ECF also speak off.

[ebb tide]

So he already has earned goodwill from me on his love for Patristic theology.

Pope Francis Appoints a Universalist - All Men Will Be Saved - to Replace Müller as Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[ebb tide]

But you seem to ignore the necessities for those two forms to be valid. I recommend you research that topic thoroughly.

[piusv]

Baptism of Desire does not include someone else’s desire for another’s baptism. Oh how I wish that were true.

[CTrent1564]

piusv:

No baptism of desire as it is defined by the Catholic Church is for adults, I do understand. So in the context of the two infants in an earlier post, maybe there is a different term that I need to clearly distinguish

There have been in the past some Catholic Theologians who argued that children could be saved, if unbaptized, if their parents desired it (I can’t think of another word) but through no fault of their own, were unable to get a Priest to administer the sacrament, this was similar to what was normative in the OT during Moses time. Again, this is only a theological opinion that was proposed similar to what Saint Augustine proposed in Limbo, although clearly Limbo was the dominant theological position for most of Church History.

[infool7]

Just an aside:

I always thought anyone(probably already baptised person) could validly baptise another (especially in an emergency) as long as they used the sacramental(water) and in the name of the Holy Trinity(In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit(Ghost)).

Is that correct?

[CTrent1564]

I am not ready to condemn aborted children to hell. Since the 4th century, the Roman Church has celebrated the Feast of the Holy Innocents, whereby Herod murdered all Children under 2. The Church, two make this a major feast during the Christmas season must have seen this children in some sense as martyrs, thus by extension connected them to the 3rd form of baptism the baptism in blood.

I know at my parish, we typically pray for the victims of abortion at Sunday Mass. Maybe your SSPX type parish does not. The Feast of the Holy Innocents is still on my Liturgical calendar, I assume it is also on yours.

It is possible that the Church sees the victims of abortion in the same fashion as the Holy Innocents described in Saint Matthew’s Gospel Chapter 2:16-17 (all boys 2 years and younger).

And again, the Church does not say what happens to aborted children, only that Mother Church trusts them to the Mercy of God.

[CTrent1564]

That is correct, say a nurse in the hospital understands the correct matter (water) and form (Holy Trinity) and baptizes and infant about to expire. That would be a valid baptism.

The question is what happens to the child when no such baptism occurs. Limbo is one theological opinion, and one that I think developed from a view of original sin that got too legal and forensic (medieval theology), hence many medieval Catholic theologians spoke of a legal transfer or transmitted sin we got from our biological parents (which I think take what Romans 5:12-14 says and develops an overly legal/forensic view of original sin, thus justification).

I think the Eastern Church Fathers of Original sin is much more theologically appealing to me in that it speaks of original sin coming from Adam (who represents all humanity), which is what Romans 5:12-14 seems to be in fact saying, not something transmitted through the union between a child’s Father and Mother, hence as some Eastern Catholic Theologians and all Eastern Orthodox say, we do not inherit an original sin gene of some sorts.