Baltimore Catechism

Oh what a great spin doctor you would make. Just word salad that is meaningless. It doesn't guard the truth at all, first to guard it, it would need to know the truth.

The RCC was not perfect when it came to slavery:

Some Catholic clergy, religious orders, and popes owned slaves, and the naval galleys of the Papal states were to use captured Muslim galley slaves in particular.Catholic teaching began, however, to turn more strongly against certain forms of slavery from 1435.
from widipedia
AMEN! I wonder what her Roman Catholic spin is on the Inquisition and "the conditions of the times," where Roman Catholic "Inquisitors" would carry out the orders of the Roman Catholic Church and satanically slaughter, rape, torture, and mentally, physically and emotionally dehumanize in every way possible anyone who left the Roman Catholic Church, including any and all infants (even those still in the wombs), aged men and women, the physcially and mentally disabled people, the blind, the deaf, the incapacitated- all were hideously butchered by the godless, demonic Roman Catholic Church that still lurks to this very day.
 
The Church has NEVER taught that water Baptism was ABSOLUTE. The Church has ALWAYS allowed for Baptism of Desire and Blood as you well know. Those are exceptions to the rule, but exceptions non-the-less.

Infants cannot desire Baptism of water either--yet we baptize them based on the desires of their parents. That same desire could apply should they die without baptism.

And note by the way---misunderstanding the Church teaching on Baptism has lead to elderly grandparents today pressuring their children to get their grandchildren baptized---when their children only do so to get the grandparents off their back. The ceremony has no meaning for them and they do not care about it. Baptism isn't magic. The people asking for Baptism---it has to mean something to them.
Since I have NEVER seen you cite one source of Catholic dogma to back up your OPINIONS, I guess I will go through the ABC's of Catholicism, since apparently you never learned any of it in the course of your "theology" studies.

Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. This was defined at the Council of Trent it it's Decree on Original Sin.

Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. - Council of Trent

Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. - Synods of Carthage and of Orange, also Trent.

Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. - Trent

Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. - 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence

Baptism confers the grace of justification and effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal. - Trent

Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. - Trent

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism by blood.

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same." This baptism of desire would certainly apply to those who have an explicit desire for baptism such as catechumens who die before they are baptized, such as Emperor Valentine II.

The Holy Innocents are celebrated in the liturgy as saints as they died for the sake of Christ and were not baptized.

The idea that other means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism can suffice, such as prayer or desire of the parents or the Church or suffering and death of the child as quasi-sacrament is speculation and has never been defined and their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus", which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body, even if only a very mild one. The Greek Fathers, for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena danmi" only, which is the exclusion of the Beatific Vision and are in a condition of natural bliss. The declaration of Pope Innocent II is in favor of this teaching.

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view.
I want to know something by the way: why do you always speak in absolutist terms about everything? "Unbaptized babies cannot be saved" and so forth? Why not just commend them to God? Do you know the damage your kind of absolutism does to parents who might have had a stillborn?

Trust me, sir, sometimes, it is okay not to have all the answers and allow people hope.
Catholicism is the most dogmatic of all religions. Popes, saints, doctors of the Church and councils for many centuries have refined and more explicitly defined the Church's teaching in more detail. Of course, none of that means anything to you and your religion of opinions.

I only post what the Church teaches, which has no relevance to you.
 
So was it the Baltimore Catechism that for many years led millions of innocent children and adults to believe the blatant lie that the Roman Catholic Church was the absolute final authority of their faith, and that no one had any right to question its teaching?
The Roman Catholic Church 'system' regards that all authority comes from God, BUT that God has appointed the Roman Catholic 'system' to be the guardian of His authority.
Who, when, where, and how did Almighty God "appoint" the Roman Catholic Church "system" to be the "guardian" of God's own authority?
 
Since I have NEVER seen you cite one source of Catholic dogma to back up your OPINIONS, I guess I will go through the ABC's of Catholicism, since apparently you never learned any of it in the course of your "theology" studies.

Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. This was defined at the Council of Trent it it's Decree on Original Sin.

Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. - Council of Trent

Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. - Synods of Carthage and of Orange, also Trent.

Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. - Trent

Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. - 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence

Baptism confers the grace of justification and effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal. - Trent

Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. - Trent

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism by blood.

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same." This baptism of desire would certainly apply to those who have an explicit desire for baptism such as catechumens who die before they are baptized, such as Emperor Valentine II.

The Holy Innocents are celebrated in the liturgy as saints as they died for the sake of Christ and were not baptized.

The idea that other means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism can suffice, such as prayer or desire of the parents or the Church or suffering and death of the child as quasi-sacrament is speculation and has never been defined and their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus", which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body, even if only a very mild one. The Greek Fathers, for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena danmi" only, which is the exclusion of the Beatific Vision and are in a condition of natural bliss. The declaration of Pope Innocent II is in favor of this teaching.

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view.

Catholicism is the most dogmatic of all religions. Popes, saints, doctors of the Church and councils for many centuries have refined and more explicitly defined the Church's teaching in more detail. Of course, none of that means anything to you and your religion of opinions.

I only post what the Church teaches, which has no relevance to you.
I believe all of the above without being absolutist.

In other words----I hold out hope that those who die without water baptism--through no fault of their own, can yet be saved by some means known to God.

Despite my belief in the above, I also believe God is bigger than the Sacraments and God is bigger that technicalities. God has bound us to baptism; it does not follow GOD is bound to baptism.

Put yet another way: I am content sometimes--NOT to have to have an answer for everything, or not to have everything in a nice little theological box where everything makes perfect sense and all lines are straight. I am content to commend infants who die without baptism to the love and mercy of God, hope in their salvation, and leave it at that. What God wills is what God wills. I just do not understand what the harm is in commending unbaptized infants to God's love and mercy and hoping that somehow, some way, God will save them.

I would hope that God is bigger than rules, regulations and technicalities. It seems you like rules, regulations, and technicalities. You must like telling grieving parents--that there is no hope for their child who died without baptism because all God cares about are rules and technicalities.
 
Last edited:
So was it the Baltimore Catechism that for many years led millions of innocent children and adults to believe the blatant lie that the Roman Catholic Church was the absolute final authority of their faith, and that no one had any right to question its teaching?
The Roman Catholic Church 'system' regards that all authority comes from God, BUT that God has appointed the Roman Catholic 'system' to be the guardian of His authority.
Who, when, where, and how did Almighty God "appoint" the Roman Catholic Church "system" to be the "guardian" of God's own authority?
That sounds like those insular teens full of bluster condemning their parents without even registering that they have what they have and are what they are because of the foundation and legacy and constancy of their parents. I can't recall the exact words but even Martin Luther acknowledged the vital role of the Catholic Church in preserving the deposit of faith for 1500 years.
 
That sounds like those insular teens full of bluster condemning their parents without even registering that they have what they have and are what they are because of the foundation and legacy and constancy of their parents. I can't recall the exact words but even Martin Luther acknowledged the vital role of the Catholic Church in preserving the deposit of faith for 1500 years.
More word salad. Loads of words making no point at all.
 
I believe all of the above without being absolutist.

In other words----I hold out hope that those who die without water baptism--through no fault of their own, can yet be saved by some means known to God.
In the matter of infants and young children who die without baptism, the common and ancient teaching of the Church is that they go to Limbo. The belief of an extraordinary means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism is purely speculative and is not taught by the Church.

Despite my belief in the above, I also believe God is bigger than the Sacraments and God is bigger that technicalities. God has bound us to baptism; it does not follow GOD is bound to baptism.

Put yet another way: I am content sometimes--NOT to have to have an answer for everything, or not to have everything in a nice little theological box where everything makes perfect sense and all lines are straight. I am content to commend infants who die without baptism to the love and mercy of God, hope in their salvation, and leave it at that. What God wills is what God wills. I just do not understand what the harm is in commending unbaptized infants to God's love and mercy and hoping that somehow, some way, God will save them.

I would hope that God is bigger than rules, regulations and technicalities. It seems you like rules, regulations, and technicalities. You must like telling grieving parents--that there is no hope for their child who died without baptism because all God cares about are rules and technicalities.
Honestly, I don't know why you call yourself a Catholic. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity established a visible, hierarchical society to teach,, rule and sanctify man. This visible society is the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. This has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, until Vatican II.

Christ established the sacraments as the ordinary means of grace and the Mass that we may receive him body, blood, soul and divinity.

But none of that matters to you. The exception becomes the rule, and thus, destroys the rule. To you, the Catholic Church is completely unnecessary. All baptized non-Catholics are operating in the state of invincible ignorance and, therefore, are saved.

It's nothing but rank heresy.
 
In the matter of infants and young children who die without baptism, the common and ancient teaching of the Church is that they go to Limbo. The belief of an extraordinary means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism is purely speculative and is not taught by the Church.
Neither is Limbo--not officially anyway. It was only ever common belief. The official teaching of the Church now, which is found in the CCC is that we commend unbaptized infants to the love and mercy of God. Benedict removed all reference to Limbo in the CCC.
Honestly, I don't know why you call yourself a Catholic. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity established a visible, hierarchical society to teach,, rule and sanctify man. This visible society is the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. This has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, until Vatican II.

Christ established the sacraments as the ordinary means of grace and the Mass that we may receive him body, blood, soul and divinity.

But none of that matters to you. The exception becomes the rule, and thus, destroys the rule. To you, the Catholic Church is completely unnecessary. All baptized non-Catholics are operating in the state of invincible ignorance and, therefore, are saved.
Just because I am not like you---needing an answer for everything, having everything nicely tucked away in a theological box where every line is straight, and everything makes logical sense--does NOT entail I reject the Catholic Faith or believe Baptism to be unnecessary.

God commanded Baptism; therefore, we baptize. God links salvation with baptism, therefore we baptize. The fact that I believe God is bigger than his own commands and is not bound by them, the fact that I hope in exceptions--does not entail I reject the rule or disbelieve the rule.
It's nothing but rank heresy.
Then you and I are both as Protestant as any other Protestant on this site. You are not in union with the RCC anymore than I am.
 
and Stella says
Developed doctrine does not render previous forms of the same doctrine, false.
Stella1000 said:
Developed doctrine does not render previous forms of the same doctrine, false.

Stella1000 said:
So I'm assuming you reject the Marian doctrines which developed over the history of the Church?
---------------------- end Stella post

Cardinal Newman says
Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil,
and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon worship to an evangelical use,
and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature,
though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found;
and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows;
the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise,
to adopt, to imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace,
as well as the philosophy of the educated class.
========================================

as Peter says;
Fabricated and Concocted stories designed to deceive
damnable Heresies they are

2Peter 2:1
In their greed they will exploit you with concocted stories.
New Catholic Bible
and then Peter reminds them in vs 6 what happened to Sodom

these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories
NIV
and once again Peter
likens it to Sodom

Cardinal Newman says
the Mass grew slowly into a rich congeries of prayers, psalms,
readings, sermon, antiphonal recitations, and, above all, that symbolic
atoning sacrifice of the "Lamb of God" which replaced in Christianity,
the bloody offerings of older faiths.
The bread and wine which these cults
had considered as gifts upon the alter before the god were now conceived
as changed by the priestly act of consecration into the body and blood of
Christ and were presented to God as a repetition of the self-immolation
of Jesus on the cross....Christianity became the last and greatest of the
mystery religions.

The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the
Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these
similarities to mislead frail minds.
 
Last edited:
Neither is Limbo--not officially anyway. It was only ever common belief. The official teaching of the Church now, which is found in the CCC is that we commend unbaptized infants to the love and mercy of God. Benedict removed all reference to Limbo in the CCC.
Limbo is a theological necessity based on the De fide dogma that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. This has been a consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, specifically at the General Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and many other theologians and popes taught the necessity of Limbo.

Just because I am not like you---needing an answer for everything, having everything nicely tucked away in a theological box where every line is straight, and everything makes logical sense--does NOT entail I reject the Catholic Faith or believe Baptism to be unnecessary.

God commanded Baptism; therefore, we baptize. God links salvation with baptism, therefore we baptize. The fact that I believe God is bigger than his own commands and is not bound by them, the fact that I hope in exceptions--does not entail I reject the rule or disbelieve the rule.
So you believe in baptism. Good for you. But baptism is only the beginning. Baptism does not save you if you are part of non-Catholic sects. But you don't believe that. You don't believe in the necessity of the Catholic Church or the Catholic Faith. You believe everyone in these sects are operating under invincible ignorance. There is absolutely no basis in any Catholic teaching to back up this belief. Also being in invincible ignorance, in itself, is not a means of salvation.

You follow a completely made-up religion of your own making. You, just like your fellow Protestants, pick and choose what to believe and what to reject.
Then you and I are both as Protestant as any other Protestant on this site. You are not in union with the RCC anymore than I am.
Name one Catholic teaching that I reject.
 
Limbo is a theological necessity based on the De fide dogma that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. This has been a consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, specifically at the General Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and many other theologians and popes taught the necessity of Limbo.
Sir, is God bound to the Sacraments or are WE bound to the Sacraments? Did God bind us to the Sacraments for His sake, or our sake? Did God make man for the Sabbath, or the Sabbath for man?

Why is God forbidden from making exceptions to his own rules from your view? Why do you limit God? Why do you make God into a God of technicalities?

That means a woman who kills her unborn child because she neither loves the child nor wants the child----also meets a God----who says the same thing to the child: "Sorry champ--but I don't want you either. You see, you are not baptized. Since I am a God that cares only about rules and technicalities, you are out of luck." Is THAT the kind of God you believe in, sir? THIS is the kind of God you want to console grieving parents who lost their child with? That isn't the God that I believe in.

Call me a heretic if you want, but I have a hard time believing in a God like that. That isn't the God that was revealed on the cross. Was the good thief water baptized? No. Did that stop God from saving him? No. Were the people who crucified Jesus water baptized? No. did that stop God from forgiving them? No. Jesus forgave them by the mere power of His word, showing--that God--himself does not need water baptism to save people. God commands water baptism because WE need water baptism. God, however, does NOT need water baptism. God's power to save is not limited by the Sacraments despite what you think. At least I hold out hope for that.
So you believe in baptism. Good for you. But baptism is only the beginning. Baptism does not save you if you are part of non-Catholic sects. But you don't believe that. You don't believe in the necessity of the Catholic Church or the Catholic Faith. You believe everyone in these sects are operating under invincible ignorance. There is absolutely no basis in any Catholic teaching to back up this belief. Also being in invincible ignorance, in itself, is not a means of salvation.
I just choose not to make dogmatic statements about who can or cannot be saved. I put that in God's hands.
You follow a completely made-up religion of your own making. You, just like your fellow Protestants, pick and choose what to believe and what to reject.

Name one Catholic teaching that I reject.
The pope.
 
Sir, is God bound to the Sacraments or are WE bound to the Sacraments? Did God bind us to the Sacraments for His sake, or our sake? Did God make man for the Sabbath, or the Sabbath for man?
Why don't you just admit you don't believe the Catholic Church is necessary, because you don't. You don't believe Christ founded the Church and the sacraments for the salvation of man. You reject the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
Why is God forbidden from making exceptions to his own rules from your view? Why do you limit God? Why do you make God into a God of technicalities?
The exception always becomes the rule for you. Show me where in even the Novus Ordo teaching where it says that everyone that is baptized is invincibly ignorant. You can't. You just make up your own religion as you go along, just like your fellow Protestants on this forum. You have never once cited any teachings to back up any of your opinions.
That means a woman who kills her unborn child because she neither loves the child nor wants the child----also meets a God----who says the same thing to the child: "Sorry champ--but I don't want you either. You see, you are not baptized. Since I am a God that cares only about rules and technicalities, you are out of luck." Is THAT the kind of God you believe in, sir? THIS is the kind of God you want to console grieving parents who lost their child with? That isn't the God that I believe in.

Call me a heretic if you want, but I have a hard time believing in a God like that. That isn't the God that was revealed on the cross. Was the good thief water baptized? No. Did that stop God from saving him? No. Were the people who crucified Jesus water baptized? No. did that stop God from forgiving them? No. Jesus forgave them by the mere power of His word, showing--that God--himself does not need water baptism to save people. God commands water baptism because WE need water baptism. God, however, does NOT need water baptism. God's power to save is not limited by the Sacraments despite what you think. At least I hold out hope for that.

I just choose not to make dogmatic statements about who can or cannot be saved. I put that in God's hands.
I'm sorry you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, you are heretic. You have your own made-up religion.
The pope.
As usual, you have it exactly backwards. It is precisely because of the teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy, that I reject the Vatican II popes, and especially Pachamama Jorge, as false popes.

I'm not even going to bother to post any magisterium that refers to the papacy, because the Church's teachings are completely meaningless to you.
 
I adhere to everything taught by the Catholic Church.

...until you don't. Then that all magically is not the teaching of the really truey true Catholic Church. Of course, you are the final arbiter of what constitutes the really truey true Catholic Church.

Just like every other Catholic on the planet.

You struggle endlessly with other Catholics...that think exactly the same way you do.
 
Is it the official teaching of the RC sect that all unbaptized infants who die are eternally excluded from Heaven?

Its certainly the teaching as understood by the RC faithful, otherwise Anna Morisi would have never bothered to give little minor Mortara child an "emergency" baptism in Bologna. And no one ever told Morisi that she was wrong for doing so.

It is my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the RCC taught this procedure to their rank and file well into the 20th Century.
 
Back
Top