What is your opinion on the teaching of EENS?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Aloysius']there is no reason to be surprised that a non-Catholic picked there is no hell...[/quote]

If the catholic God doesn't exist, then Hell might not exist. But if the catholic God exists, then Hell definitely cannot.

That's my opinion anyway. As a non-Catholic.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]If the catholic God doesn't exist, then Hell might not exist. But if the catholic God exists, then Hell definitely cannot.

That's my opinion anyway. As a non-Catholic. [/quote]

Why do you think that the Trinity and the hell cannot both exist?

[Aloysius]

the Catholic God is a God of mercy for those who accept it, but wrath, vengence, and justice for those who do not. That is who the Catholic God is, He is not the lovey dovey cartoon charecter who accepts everyone into heaven out of niceness.

His love is a pure love that is not clouded by any emotion, rather it is guided by pure absolute reason and pure absolute justness.

not egalitarianism, not comparitive fairness or relative fairness, but absolutist justice.

the Catholic God has never been defined in any contradictory way, Divine Justice forges the pits of Hell. God chooses not to excercise his omnipotence on His creature's wills thus allowing them either to reject him and thus not be fulfilled as they were designed and be punished for their wrongdoings, or accept Him and be fulfilled as they were designed and forgiven their wrongdoings.

What you ought to have said is: "if the new age "nice" god really does exist, then there can be no hell"... with that, I will agree. that's why Paschal's wager still makes being Catholic better than being any religion in which the God is not wrathful or punishing.

[Semalsia]

[quote]Why do you think that the Trinity and the hell cannot both exist?[/quote]

Eternal punishment would be in contradiction to the Goodness. Even forgetting that infinitely merciful God would likely punish less than someone deserves, His own rule of "eye for an eye... etc" would make Him a monster in comparison. There is no way any finite crime could ever justify the use of infinite punishment. A being that would use such means would be the cruelest imaginable. And thus not the catholic God.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Aloysius']What you ought to have said is: "if the new age "nice" god really does exist, then there can be no hell"[/quote]

Well, if I have misunderstood the nature of the Catholic God and He is truly the cruelest being imaginable, then Hell can exist. And probably does.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Feb 15 2006, 09:41 PM']Eternal punishment would be in contradiction to the Goodness. [right][snapback]888914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]No, it is because God is pure Good that there is a Hell. Something that is sin cannot be in the presence of pure Good. So God's ultimate and infinite "Goodness" only affirms the existence of Hell. Goodness is not synonymous with

[quote]Even forgetting that infinitely merciful God would likely punish less than someone deserves, His own rule of  "eye for an eye... etc" would make Him a monster in comparison. [/quote]YOu must understand the context of the lex talionis (Law of Talon/ Eye for an eye). People were killing someones brother over petty theft. People were enacting outrageous vengence for the smallest infractions, and so the Lex Talionis was put into place to start to curb that. Then you must remember that Christ fulfilled the Law when He said to forgive out neighbor.

[quote]There is no way any finite crime could ever justify the use of infinite punishment. A being that would use such means would be the cruelest imaginable. And thus not the catholic God.[/quote] We are not talking abuot a mere stealing a piece of candy from a shop, we are talking about mortal sin. The type of sin that is an offence against God or God's Law. Such acts are directly opposed to God and it is not so much that they are punished (which is also the case), but that through mortal sin they have effectively severed their relationship with God. The person, through sin, has rejected God and His grace and so has intentionally, or inadvertantly chosen Hell. I say inadvertantly not because the person accidently chooses Hell, but to point out that a person does not have to say "I choose Hell." The person inadvertently does this by rejecting God which has the natural consequence of damnation.

Also do not forget that we do not merit heaven, it is a gift. We as humans sin and so God's grace is a gift.

[Semalsia]

Do you think that it's possible there's a moment after death when if you repent, you would be forgiven?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Feb 15 2006, 10:18 PM']Do you think that it's possible there's a moment after death when if you repent, you would be forgiven?
[right][snapback]888938[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No. I am sorry but we do not believe that one can be forgiven after death. A lot of Protestants have that misconception about the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Purgatory is a cleansing and purging process, not a forgiving process. Purgatory presupposes salvation and is a preperation for heaven. Romans will help with this, specifically Romans 2:14ff

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:05 PM']There seem to be a lot of interesting points made here. I am curious about one of these points in particular. One of the Schemas presented to the Council Fathers of the First Vatican Council concerning the Church of Christ was cited. I have been unable to find this in the actual documents of the Council. Was this Schema rejected by the Council Fathers? Thanks.
[right][snapback]888747[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have Don John Bosco as your avatar! : My best friend's dog is named after him!

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 15 2006, 09:10 PM']I was going tosay for option A. "Only those who are in the Chuch by one of the three Baptisms" but I decided that was self-explanitory. Also, some modernists take Baptism of Desire out of proportion, and I believe it is only guarenteed to catechumans, though some MAY be able to recieve it, but that is not for sure.
[right][snapback]888817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I do believe that valid Baptisms by water have been acknowledged, even those of heretics, by an earlier council.

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 15 2006, 09:11 PM']I can't believe someone believes that hell does not exist, all virtuous people except Trads go to heaven, and all virtuous people go to heaven!
[right][snapback]888821[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are many non-Catholics, as Al said, that are here. I think that should explain that.

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Feb 15 2006, 10:41 PM']Eternal punishment would be in contradiction to the Goodness. Even forgetting that infinitely merciful God would likely punish less than someone deserves, His own rule of  "eye for an eye... etc" would make Him a monster in comparison. There is no way any finite crime could ever justify the use of infinite punishment. A being that would use such means would be the cruelest imaginable. And thus not the catholic God.
[right][snapback]888914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have an article for you I wrote for my school paper.

I started writing these with the intention of addressing Limbo, especially now that there is talk of striking it from the books completely in the Catholic Church. But I think that to speak of Limbo, we must first address both the land of the blessed and the land of the damned. Last time I touched on Purgatory to show the end of those men who die in the state of grace with the stain of sin still on their soul, the men about to enter into the Beatific Vision.
Hell is the second place I wish to discuss. It is the place for those men who die in the state of mortal sin, a condition brought upon them by their own actions. As I mentioned before, Our Lord works with us in salvation, giving us the choice whether to spend the end of our life with Him or separated from Him. When we die, we have already made the choice where we want to spend eternity and there is no turning back.
Living in Texas, I often hear analogies made between Texas’ heat and Hell’s fire; however, I think these are inaccurate. We are very fortunate here at UD to read such wonderful literature as Dante’s Divine Comedy, which has many lessons to offer us. Just as Dante encounters a level of fire and intense heat, he also runs into the land of the ice and cold. St. Alphonsus Ligouri says that the souls in Hell pass from extreme heat to bitter cold and back again, without relief. He draws on the passage in Job that says, “Let him pass from the snow waters to excessive heat, and his sin even to hell” (DRB Job 24:19). This is an even more intense pain than a constant heat. This means, for us in the middle of the South, that the weather in Texas is not analogous to Hell’s temperatures because we rarely see cold!
Knowing the fate of the Baptized souls not in sin and those souls that have died in the state of mortal sin raises the question of what happens to the un-Baptized souls that die before they can enter in to the Church, but not to any fault of their own. It seems unfair that they should be made to endure Hell’s torments, but according to the Church no one may go to Heaven without Baptism…

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:22 PM']No. I am sorry but we do not believe that one can be forgiven after death. A lot of Protestants have that misconception about the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Purgatory is a cleansing and purging process, not a forgiving process. Purgatory presupposes salvation and is a preperation for heaven. Romans will help with this, specifically Romans 2:14ff
[right][snapback]888940[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think I might post another article on this.

Recently in the news, there have been many rumours of the Vatican striking Limbo from books completely. What surprised me more than this was that many Catholics started praising this turn of events as a wonderful blessing. I honestly could not figure out what was so repulsive about Limbo and so I did some research. It may be that most of the people I hang out with were influenced by Dante’s Inferno, in which Limbo is the first level of Hell, but I’m not sure why most everyone considers Limbo a place of great torment.
This last week, as I sat procrastinating late one night, one of my roommates came in asking me about the practice of selling indulgences. Of course, this being UD, there is no such thing as a simple question and a simple answer. This naturally progressed into a discussion on the nature of Purgatory, which truly is the only likely outcome in a conversation between two people who have both read Dante’s Purgatorio. I figure that to understand Limbo, Purgatory might actually be a good place to begin especially since many people misunderstand them and want to deny both due to their implications.
The more he and I talked, the more I got the impression that for him (as well as most people I know) Purgatory is a place where God must send us to undergo purification before we enter into the Beatific Vision. Now of course I do not deny this fact, but I do think there can be much more said about it.
When looking at Purgatory, I have a very close analogy that I like to use. A few years back one of my friends ran into the back of my car. To me it wasn’t much of a big deal, and I didn’t care at all, but she felt terrible about the whole incident and the tiny dent she left. I of course didn’t make her pay for it, but each time she saw me over the next month, she was reminded of this minor bump. To her it was more painful to be in my presence than had she paid for it.
St. Catherine of Genoa says the same thing about Heaven. For us, who offend God, it would be too painful to be in His awesome presence without knowing that we had done something to atone for our sins. Heaven for us would almost be as another Hell without this chance to repay some of the debt we owe. The sinner, according to St. Catherine, chooses purification in Purgatory freely so that he may encounter the Lord in His full glory. Because we participate in salvation rather than have it forced upon us, the Father gives us this wonderful and merciful chance to participate in the punishment for our sins.

[Ash Wednesday]

I didn't do it, but I almost wanted to select "F", soley for the sake of pushing people's buttons.

[caitlin1030]

Outside the Church there is no salvation. There's never been any dogmatic pronouncement on the baptisms of blood/desire... if the Church/Council Fathers (Florence, Trent, etc.) wanted to say there was invincible ignorance, or desire sufficed, then they would have. Until then I believe just what it says.

[caitlin1030]

rather, until an official, papal pronouncement that there is baptism of blood/desire i will believe in the exact words and meaning of the dogma.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='caitlin1030' date='Feb 16 2006, 08:14 AM']Outside the Church there is no salvation. There's never been any dogmatic pronouncement on the baptisms of blood/desire... if the Church/Council Fathers (Florence, Trent, etc.) wanted to say there was invincible ignorance, or desire sufficed, then they would have. Until then I believe just what it says.
[right][snapback]889128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Have you read the CCC? It might not be dogmatic, but it does discuss Baptism of Blood and Desire in the paragraphs: 1258, 1260, and 1281. And please do not say that the CCC is not authoritative. The Apostolic Contintution Fidei Depositum assures us that it is a "sure guide for teaching" and is a "statement of Church faith and catholic doctrine." Also please not that the foot not in paragraph 1260 is from Lumen Gention which is a [i]dogmatic constitution[/i].

edit: sorry I did not see your second post when I posted this.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Paphnutius

[thessalonian]

I really can't answer the poll. I would tend to answer A but I don't think you intend it the way I take it. All must be a part of the Church. Some are ignorant of what the Church is and that is not held against them, separating them from the Church. These are informally joined to the Church. Their desire is to be a part of the true Church, though they do not know it. I don't know if a few or alot of non-catholics (formally so) make it to heaven and leave that up to God. Therefore I cannot answer with #2 or #3. They may all go to hell and that is God's right in line with his mercy and justice. E is close but it must be true virtue brought about by God's grace working in the soul. Noone is saved outside of grace. Pelgianism is false and that is what E points toward for me. D is definitely false as it sounds like one could willfully reject the Church and get to heaven. This is not possible.

Trads are schismatics so they better hope that EENS doesn't mean exactly what they think it means. Those who don't believe in hell will when they get there. (unless of course their unbelief is in true and invincible ignorance).

Blessings

[thessalonian]

[quote name='caitlin1030' date='Feb 16 2006, 08:14 AM']Outside the Church there is no salvation. There's never been any dogmatic pronouncement on the baptisms of blood/desire... if the Church/Council Fathers (Florence, Trent, etc.) wanted to say there was invincible ignorance, or desire sufficed, then they would have. Until then I believe just what it says.
[right][snapback]889128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Trent does.

And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected...without the laver of regeneration, OR THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

You will also find several papal statements with regard to ignorance. One by Pius IX I can look up. Ignorance does not save however. It is simply a reason why one is not condemned for the same offense that another is. It's a biblical principal.

Luke 12
47] And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating.
[48] But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

We are more accountable than those who do not know.

[Azriel]

I'd like to take just a moment, on this thread in particular, that the purpose of the debate table has always really been so that people of different faiths, etc, could come to learn, debate etc.

More often than not, we end up debating ourselves, but we must always keep in mind that a newer member may not indeed be Catholic.

Therefore, assumptions cannot be made.

And, above all else, treat them as you would any of the phamily.

Jumps off soapbox.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='caitlin1030' date='Feb 16 2006, 09:25 AM']rather, until an official, papal pronouncement that there is baptism of blood/desire i will believe in the exact words and meaning of the dogma.
[right][snapback]889132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The ordinary teaching of the Church covers this, it doesn't have to be a papal pronouncement to get our religious assent.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='caitlin1030' date='Feb 16 2006, 09:14 AM']Outside the Church there is no salvation. There's never been any dogmatic pronouncement on the baptisms of blood/desire... if the Church/Council Fathers (Florence, Trent, etc.) wanted to say there was invincible ignorance, or desire sufficed, then they would have. Until then I believe just what it says.
[right][snapback]889128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But since they don't contradict, it's not necessarily to hold them as opposed.

What do you think of the Baltimore Catechism?

[quote]157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for out salvation.

"Ardent wish" by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.

Baptism of desire would be useful and necessary if there was no water at hand or no person to baptize; or if the one wishing to be baptized and those about him did not know exactly how Baptism was to be given-which might easily happen in pagan lands. One thing you must especially remember in giving Baptism in case of necessity: namely, that it would not do for one person to pour the water and another to say the words. The same person must do both, or the Baptism will not be valid. If you are called to baptize in case of necessity, be very careful to observe the following points, otherwise the Baptism will not be valid: use clean water and nothing but water-no other liquid would do. Say every one of the exact words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It would not do to say, "I baptize thee in the name of God"; or, "I baptize thee in the name of the Blessed Trinity"; nor would it do to say simply, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," without saying, "I baptize thee." Say the words at the same time you pour the water, and be sure the water touches the skin. It would not do to pour the water simply on the hair. You must not sprinkle the water, but pour it upon the head.

When you have followed the above instructions carefully and are sure you have baptized properly, never under any circumstance repeat the Baptism on the same person. It is a sin to try to baptize more than once when you know Baptism can be given only once. The sight of the person dying and the fact that you are called for the first time may cause you to be somewhat excited; but be calm, remember the importance of the Sacrament, and you will administer it as directed. Parents should not baptize their own children in case of necessity, if there is any other person present who can validly do it. Remember those who administer Baptism contract a spiritual relationship with the person they baptize (not with his parents). If they wished, years afterwards, to marry the person they baptized, they must make this relationship known to the priest.

Sponsors are not necessary in private Baptism. A person may be sponsor for a child in Baptism without being present at the Baptism, provided someone else holds the child in his name and answers the questions he himself would answer if he were present. Such a sponsor is said to stand for the child by proxy, and he, and not the one who holds the child, is then the real godparent when, at the request of the parents or priest he has consented to be sponsor.

160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason-say political.

161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.[/quote]

[qfnol31]

Another good source for that, while we're on the subject, is the Catholic encyclopedia:
[quote]X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

(1) The Baptism of Desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

(2) The Baptism of Blood

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (De Bapt., xvi) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism." The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church. Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Suarez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)

XI. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed. [/quote]

(I purposefully quoted it long because it speaks to the topic of this thread too.)