the un-baptised

[Guest Aluigi]

their anticipation of Christ was the faith of their salvation, that they went to the bosom of Abraham until Christ came and got em for the three days He was dead

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='J.R.D' date='Nov 6 2004, 11:21 PM']First of all,

You do not need to be baptized to go to heaven, what about all the unborn children died from abortion?... why cant everyone who wasnt baptized not go to heaven if they lived a good life?[/quote]
Unbaptized aborted infants DON'T go to Heaven. I don't know who told you otherwise.

The reason you have to be baptized and not just be a good person is that the Church said so infallibly literally dozens of times, most notably in Canons on Baptism of the Council of Trent:

[quote]Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema.

[13] St. John iii. 5[/quote]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:32 PM'] Unbaptized aborted infants DON'T go to Heaven. I don't know who told you otherwise. [/quote]
Aborted infants are probably Baptized by blood, for they are martyrs of the womb.

[thessalonian]

So the holy innocents whose feast day we celebrate yearly did not go to heaven? I know of no feast day the Church celbrates for those who did not go to heaven. All souls day is the closest of course and is for the souls in purgatory.

It is my belief that you do not understand Trent.

God bless

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 03:36 PM'] Aborted infants are probably Baptized by blood, for they are martyrs of the womb. [/quote]
1) Baptism of Blood has never been defined ex Cathedra, but even if you believe in it, 2) they are NOT martyrs, since they are not murdered for the Faith.

With your assessment, anyone who is murdered has a 'baptism' of blood.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Nov 8 2004, 03:36 PM'] So the holy innocents whose feast day we celebrate yearly did not go to heaven? I know of no feast day the Church celbrates for those who did not go to heaven. All souls day is the closest of course and is for the souls in purgatory.

It is my belief that you do not understand Trent.

God bless [/quote]
1) The Holy Innocents were murdered BEFORE the necessity of Baptism. The necessity of Baptism, according to the Church, did not commence until Pentecost day. What you are saying, basically, is that Baptism can't be necessary, since under the Old Law no one was baptized. That is illogical. It only is necessary AFTER it's institution. We live under the New Law, not the Old.

2) There are feast days (at least in the new calendar) of people who are not Saints but merely Blessed. To be Blessed does not mean one is in Heaven. A person who is Blessed is not automatically in Heaven. A Saint is for sure in Heaven. A Blessed is a person who the Church says is in Heaven but which is NOT AN INFALLIBLE DECLARATION. I'm not saying the Holy Innocents aren't in Heaven (they are--they died under the Old Law), but I am just letting you know there are feasts for those who either could or could not be in Heaven.

3) I understand the Canons on Baptism of Trent quite well: "Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema."

([13] St. John iii. 5)

[qfnol31]

You know, you gotta start going beyond ex-Cathedra. There have been two such cases.

Also, distinguish beyond infallibly taught and defined. You keep using them as the same, but they're not.

The aborted are martyred for being alive a gift of God. They are the witnesses to the dignity of life, a huge part of our faith.

[cmotherofpirl]

Something doesn't have to be defined Ex Cathedra for us to have to believe it.

[qfnol31]

Read my post on the types of infallibilty. Next, tell me how this statement on Baptism of Blood isn't infallible:

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized.22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God.


It is taught by the OUEM infallibly. It is universal. It is definitive. This is faith.

IT IS INFALLIBLE.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 8 2004, 03:44 PM'] Something doesn't have to be defined Ex Cathedra for us to have to believe it. [/quote]
I never said that.... all I said was BoB is not defined ex Cathedra--that isn't the debate though, the debate is if a person can have such a thing (if it exists) by being aborted. Any right-minded theologian can tell you: absolutely not. Martyrdom is DYING FOR THE FAITH OF CHRIST, the CATHOLIC Faith. The aborted infant couldn't possibly do that, since he has not belief in any Religion explicitly, as he has not reached the age of use.

In any event, if you think abortions are sending these babies to Heaven, then why do so many people call it satanic? Wouldn't it be Divine? Why would satan want to send 4000 people to Heaven every day? That is simply absurd. It would not be so wrong if these babies were going to Heaven. In fact, it would be good to be able to ensure that they are going to Heaven.

The idea of a baptism of blood for an aborted infant fails theologically and logically.

[qfnol31]

[quote]I never said that.... all I said was BoB is not defined ex Cathedra--that isn't the debate though, the debate is if a person can have such a thing (if it exists) by being aborted. Any right-minded theologian can tell you: absolutely not. Martyrdom is DYING FOR THE FAITH OF CHRIST, the CATHOLIC Faith. The aborted infant couldn't possibly do that, since he has not belief in any Religion explicitly, as he has not reached the age of use.[/quote]

Catholic Faith says dignity of life. Aborted babies say dignity of life. They are dying for this cause. Murdered people normally aren't murdered because someone doesn't think they're alive. Aborted babies, many people don't think they're alive. That's how that's different. That is a part of our Faith.

[quote]In any event, if you think abortions are sending these babies to Heaven, then why do so many people call it satanic? Wouldn't it be Divine? Why would satan want to send 4000 people to Heaven every day? That is simply absurd. It would not be so wrong if these babies were going to Heaven. In fact, it would be good to be able to ensure that they are going to Heaven.[/quote]

That's like saying the Crucifixion was Divine or Martyrdom is Divine.

[quote]The idea of a baptism of blood for an aborted infant fails theologically and logically.[/quote]

According to bad theology or logic.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 03:48 PM'] Read my post on the types of infallibilty. Next, tell me how this statement on Baptism of Blood isn't infallible:

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized.22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God.


It is taught by the OUEM infallibly. It is universal. It is definitive. This is faith.

IT IS INFALLIBLE. [/quote]
I'm sorry... OUEM? What is that?

Is that from the CCC? If so, it's not infallible. The CCC has been revised so many times, it's impossible to say it's infallible.

Moreover, take the quote: "1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized."

The Baptism with which HE HAD TO BE BAPTIZED??? Christ had to be baptized now? That would fail considerably if you are trying to say that martyrdom is a Baptism sufficient and equal to water. Also, if Christ was already baptized with water, then why did he get baptized in Blood again? It seems to me to follow the same usage of "Baptism of Blood" as the Fathers (meaning simply martyrdom).

"22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God."

It says water and blood are forms of Baptism, but it doesn't say they are both salvific in themselves. Baptism of Blood (read: martyrdom) is not salvific insofar as it is necessary to be baptized in water to be a martyr. Moreover, it likens the Eucharist to a "Sacrament of new life". Yes, Baptism is a rebirth, the only way to be forgiven of Original Sin. The Eucharist is a renewal of Christ's Redeptive Act on the Cross (which is the only way anyone could ever be born to Heaven), and martyrdom is a new birth into Heaven, as martyrs go immediately to Heaven, as their temporal suffering is made up for by their martyrdom (I assume that the Church grants them a plenary indulgence for such an act).

Anyway, we can debate this later--we are getting off topic. First, can we please debate why even if there is a BoB, an infant can't get it merely by being murdered?

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Catholic Faith says dignity of life.  Aborted babies say dignity of life.  They are dying for this cause.[/quote]

That's the whole point: the baby isn't SAYING anything. The baby isn't dying FOR anything. The baby is being murdered. He does not have the use of reason. He cannot die FOR a cause, nor can he SAY anything.

[qfnol31]

I said to read my post first because it describes the OUEM: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23087"]Doctrine vs. Discipline[/url]

[quote]Next comes Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Dogma:
The infallibly taught is often from the [b]O[/b]rdinary [b]U[/b]niversal [b]E[/b]piscopal [b]M[/b]agisterium. It must be Ordinary (usually has to do with Natural Law), Universal (not decided just on numbers), held definitively, and must be faith and morals. If all these are kept, then it is probably infallibly taught.
Infallibly defined comes from two sources: 1) Papal Magisterium, 2) Ecumenical Magisterium.[/quote]

The way this has been taught has changed, but the teaching itself has not. In that case, it fits the things above, and so, whether it's in the Catechism or not, it fits all the criteria.

What you're saying is it can't be infallible because the way it's taught has changed. What's the case is that it's not defined infallibly, but taught infallibly (big distinction), and the difference is only the definition.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 8 2004, 02:01 PM'] That's the whole point: the baby isn't SAYING anything. The baby isn't dying FOR anything. The baby is being murdered. He does not have the use of reason. He cannot die FOR a cause, nor can he SAY anything. [/quote]
He is saying something just by living. He may not have the full use of reason (or really none at all at this time), but neither does a child, and you can ask a child to die for God.

And isn't there the Holy Innocence we celebrate? I doubt those were Baptized by water. They had no use of reason. How come they're martyrs?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:58 PM'] Anyway, we can debate this later--we are getting off topic. First, can we please debate why even if there is a BoB, an infant can't get it merely by being murdered? [/quote]
An infant should be able to get it by just being murdered, just look at the Holy Innocence.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 04:05 PM'] He is saying something just by living. He may not have the full use of reason (or really none at all at this time), but neither does a child, and you can ask a child to die for God.

And isn't there the Holy Innocence we celebrate? I doubt those were Baptized by water. They had no use of reason. How come they're martyrs? [/quote]
As I said before, did you read it?, that they lived under the Old Law. Water Baptism couldn't have been necessary, since it hadn't been taught. You are usuing what is known as a logical fallacy. You are saying: it can't be against the law to pay taxes, since in 1776 you didn't have to. No, just because there weren't any American taxes then does not mean they are not levied now. Just because water Baptism was not in existence c. AD 1 does not mean that it was not necessary AD 33.

Moreover, the Holy Innocents were martyred in that they were killed in place of Christ. This is a special circumstance. You can't call the attempted murder of Christ the same as the murder-fo-convenience, etc. that happens today. Your analogy doesn't seem to stand, and on top of that, that all was in the Old Law, which would be different.

[quote]Next comes Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Dogma:
The infallibly taught is often from the Ordinary Universal Episcopal Magisterium. It must be Ordinary (usually has to do with Natural Law), Universal (not decided just on numbers), held definitively, and must be faith and morals. If all these are kept, then it is probably infallibly taught.
Infallibly defined comes from two sources: 1) Papal Magisterium, 2) Ecumenical Magisterium.[/quote]

PROBABLY infallible, not INFALLIBLE. Moreover, read the Catholic Encyclopedia about what Papal infallibility is. Not even everything in a Council, such as Trent, is infallible. Such as statement you found is not automatically infallible, according to what you wrote before. Even what you wrote before said it is PROBABLY infallible.

In any event, here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm[/url], especially consider V. What teaching is infallible?

[qfnol31]

[quote]PROBABLY infallible, not INFALLIBLE. Moreover, read the Catholic Encyclopedia about what Papal infallibility is. Not even everything in a Council, such as Trent, is infallible. Such as statement you found is not automatically infallible, according to what you wrote before. Even what you wrote before said it is PROBABLY infallible. [/quote]

Right now you're mixing Papal and Ecumenical Infallibility. Also, infallible means just that. It's a Truth taught, and while the means can be changed, the meaning cannot.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 04:21 PM']
Right now you're mixing Papal and Ecumenical Infallibility. Also, infallible means just that. It's a Truth taught, and while the means can be changed, the meaning cannot. [/quote]
The Pope presiding over a Council is still a Papal document, under an Ecumenical Council. It's the Pope AND MORE. The other statement is just the Pope. Either way, it is the Pope defining something. Read, as I said, the entry in Catholic Encyclopedia. It explains how the declaration on the Immaculate Conception was defined in one or two sentences, even though the document was very long. Not everything in a certain Pope's writing is infallible just because something defined is infallible in it somewhere.

Please address my comment I left before this. You seemed to pick out one thing I said and respond to that instead of responding to all.

[qfnol31]

Hmm, I'll try.

[quote]PROBABLY infallible, not INFALLIBLE.[/quote]

This I adressed saying there isn't really a distiction.

[quote]Moreover, read the Catholic Encyclopedia about what Papal infallibility is. Not even everything in a Council, such as Trent, is infallible.[/quote]

The council as a whole isn't, but what is stated based on faith and morals is. Ed: This is the Episcopal Magisterium, meaning that not just the Pope is behind it. When the Pope defines something infallible, that is an ex Cathedra statement.

[quote]Such as statement you found is not automatically infallible, according to what you wrote before.[/quote]

You're right, it isn't, but according to the criteria set forth by moral theology, this fits those criteria, and so it is infallibly.

[quote]Even what you wrote before said it is PROBABLY infallible.[/quote]

Probably because I have no authoritative voice and know that as a 19-year-old I don't know much in theology and don't want to act like I know very much. I don't want to fall into a trap (easy for me) that I understand theology well.

[quote]In any event, here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm[/url], especially consider V. What teaching is infallible?[/quote]

All teaching on faith or morals that is taught definitively by the Ordinary Universal Episcopal Magisterium is infallibly taught.


Did you read that article I wrote?

Edited November 8, 2004 by qfnol31