Baltimore Catechism

I told you---Augustine was a brilliant doctor of the Church.

I love it when lay Catholics come here and try to convince us all that they know Catholicism better than St. Augustine.

It is true that Augustine's speculations on this subject were common belief.

No. He emphatically denied he was speculating.

The Church however never officially taught them.

Here it is again:

"(the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ"

Augustine reiterates that what he is teaching here is "the Apostolic preaching."

That is not speculation, though you seek to slander your "brilliant doctor of the Church." LOL
 
We have Catholics claiming their CCC is infallible


No, the CCC is NOT infallible

"Not everything in the Catechism is infallible and some of it contradicts previous catechisms."

proving my point: Catholic are NOT in agreement on what is infallible:
you do need a list
Here is what I am going to do: I am going to GRANT that Catholics do not know what is or is not infallible.

The thing we HAVE that Protestants DO NOT is a mechanism to CLARIFY the teachings if or when there is a major dispute. Hence, if the need arises, for example, to clarify the status of the document on women's ordination, the Church can do so. I might suggest that the debate on what is or is not infallible misses the point entirely. Catholics believe that the Church was founded by God to be His living voice through the ages for the purposes of teaching what God has revealed, protecting and guarding what God has revealed, and when necessary, acting as judge and arbiter as to what teachings are or are not in line with the Scriptures. The issue if infallibility, then, is really secondary.

Protestants have NO SUCH mechanism, do they? Hence the hundreds of competing sects that can't agree on the infallible teachings of Scripture. Protestants do not believe the Church was founded by God and endowed with His authority to teach, guard, defend, protect, and otherwise act as judge and arbiter as to what teachings are or not scriptural.

Now, are you going to give me an infallible list of all the infallible teachings of Scripture or are you going to continue to ignore that? Oh, and be sure to explain why YOUR infallible list is any better than any other sect's infallible list.

If your argument is that an infallible Church is useless because Catholics can't agree on what is or is not infallible, then the Scriptures are useless for the exact same reason. YOU, sir, CANNOT (or WILL NOT) provide me a list of all the infallible teachings of Scripture. No protestant can do that not the least of which is because Protestants cannot agree on what the Scriptures teach in the first place. So YOU have the same problem!
 
I love it when lay Catholics come here and try to convince us all that they know Catholicism better than St. Augustine.
Since when is Augustine an authority for you on anything? I thought the Scriptures were the sole, infallible rule of Faith. Now all of a sudden you want to appeal to Augustine for evidence that unbaptized babies go to Limbo? Augustine taught the necessity of water Baptism--something you reject as unscriptural.

That is laughable! If I appealed to Augustine for why I believed in the real presence, you would laugh me off these boards! What does what Augustine's teaching on Baptism and Limbo have to do with anything?
No. He emphatically denied he was speculating.
Let me get this straight: I have to believe in Limbo because Augustine said so. But Augustine taught Limbo because of the necessity of Baptism. Do you believe water baptism is necessary for salvation, as Augustine taught? If not, what does his teaching on Limbo have to do with anything?
Here it is again:

"(the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ"

Augustine reiterates that what he is teaching here is "the Apostolic preaching."

That is not speculation, though you seek to slander your "brilliant doctor of the Church." LOL
And WHAT does this have to do with anything?
 
Where did I say baptism is not essential? It IS essential. God commanded it. Baptism is essential for US because God commanded it.

What I said was that Baptism is not necessary for GOD. God does not need Baptism.

Because God commanded baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Correct. Goes all the way back to the Bible.

Great. Your point?
If baptism isn't essential for Almighty God to save someone, then it just isn't essential, is it?

Sounds like you are just giving a little bit of double talk here.
 
Since when is Augustine an authority for you on anything?

He is an authority on what the teaching of the Catholic Church was in his day.



Let me get this straight: I have to believe in Limbo because Augustine said so.

I did not quote Augustine saying a word about "Limbo."

I did quote him contradicting you, however.


And WHAT does this have to do with anything?

What it means is that you misrepresented and slandered Augustine....the "great doctor of the Church."
 
If baptism isn't essential for Almighty God to save someone, then it just isn't essential, is it?
It is essential if God commands it.

We baptize becasue God commanded it, linking salvation with Baptism.

This does not entail that GOD is bound to baptism.

Is it your assertion that God cannot save someone who isn't baptized if God wills to do so?
 
"(the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ"
Fine. And I agree with this, as, I am sure you do. Can anyone be saved without being "vivified" in Christ? No. What does this have to do with the very specific question of infants who die before being water baptized? The above statement is a general statement. It says nothing about unbaptized infants which is a specific question.

Put another way: where does this statement teach that God cannot "vivify" unbaptized babies and thus, admit them to heaven apart from water baptism?
 
Sir, I said the idea of you being a priest and counseling people in grief with "There, there, it will all be okay, your unbaptized child is in Hell and has absolutely NO hope of salvation because God cannot work outside of the Sacraments" is what is scarier than hell and damnation itself.

Get right what I see, please.

Sir, I believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation. What I do NOT believe is that it follows that God cannot work outside of the Sacramental system He has bound us to. God commanded Baptism for salvation, therefore we baptize. Does this mean God is bound to Baptism? NO. Does this mean God cannot work to save someone outside of Baptism? NO.

The problem I have with you, sir, is that you jump to conclusions.

Who said the exception is the rule? When did I say "Don't worry about getting baptized, God will save you regardless?"

All I said is that I do not believe we should abandon all hope for those babies who die before baptism. Is God a God of technicalities? I sure hope not!

Amen! Are you finally starting to understand? Not only can God choose to save whomever He wants in His providence, God can choose to save whomever He wants, HOWEVER he wants!

Who said anything about God doing injustice to people?

When did I say otherwise?

Who denies anything? You yourself said God can choose to save whomever He wants. God can also save whomever He wants, HOWEVER He wants. Thus, if God wants to save someone outside of the normal means which He has set up for salvation, who is to tell God He cannot do that?

You are in essence saying to God: "The Church teaches that because YOU have bound us to the Sacraments, YOU may not act outside of the Sacramental System to save people. You must act within the system you established to save people--otherwise---the Sacraments are meaningless and unnecessary."

Sir, I choose not to place limits on God's love or generosity. You apparently like placing limits on God.

Your analogy presupposes that I am arguing we do not have to worry about getting baptized. I am not arguing that.

Correct: unless God chooses to save them some way, somehow, known to Him alone, they would be excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

Where does the Church teach that God CANNOT save them outside of the Sacramental system? Where does the Church teach that we should abandon all hope for those who died without water Baptism?

I am merely stating is that I believe God CAN make exceptions, since God is not bound to the Sacraments.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

No, the rad-trad Church that is not in union with Rome teaches this.
 
I am merely stating is that I believe God CAN make exceptions, since God is not bound to the Sacraments.
This is the De fide dogma of the Catholic Church; "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation."

Also this; "Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God."

The dogmas of the Catholic Church are not based on emotionalism or what you impose on God as being "just." The souls who go to Limbo are in the exact place they are supposed to be.

Also, Limbo certainly was taught by the Church. It is a theological necessity based upon two Die fide dogmas above, which you deny.

The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438) declared: "the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell but their punishment is very different)."

Pope Innocent III and Pope Pius VI also affirmed the teaching of Limbo.

Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are "excluded from Beatific Vision," which is one of the reasons Sixtus V denounced abortion as a heinous crime.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the unbaptized "cannot be saved, for there is only one means of being incorporated with Jesus Christ and of receiving his grace [Baptism], without which there is no salvation among men."

Of course, I know this doesn't mean anything to you and your made-up religion of opinions and "exceptions." It comes as no surprise that you discount one of the greatest doctors of the Church in Catholicism. I guess Augustine was one of those evil "rad trads."

Please show me in your Novus Ordo magisterium where it says that all baptized non-Catholics are operating under invincible ignorance and are "saved."

No, the rad-trad Church that is not in union with Rome teaches this.
Yeah, all those "rad-trade" saints, doctors, theologians, popes and councils before Vatican II taught it. But I'm sure you know better than they do with you religion of opinions.

St. Augustine: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

Council of Florence; "It [The Catholic Church} firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”

As far as your heretical belief that non-Catholic sects are in some kind of "communion" with the Catholic Church, that has been condemned on multiple occasions by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I will only post one such example. Please note that I am not posting any examples of Catholic magisterium for your benefit as you have shown that they mean absolutely nothing to you. I am posting these for the benefit of others to prove that you are wrong, and you reject the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church in favor of your made-up religion of opinions and "exceptions."

Pope Pius IX [Letter Jam vos omnes, September 13, 1868, to Protestants and other non-Catholics] "Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity."
 
It is essential if God commands it.

We baptize becasue God commanded it, linking salvation with Baptism.

This does not entail that GOD is bound to baptism.

Is it your assertion that God cannot save someone who isn't baptized if God wills to do so?
The Council of Trent declared Die fide; "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation."
 
Why does this have to do with the Church of today?
So Augustine and the other doctors of the Church before Vatican II are irrelevant to the new Novus Ordo religion? Seems like you're implying that Church dogmas can "evolve" and change over time.

Which is another condemned proposition, not that that means anything to you.
 
So Augustine and the other doctors of the Church before Vatican II are irrelevant to the new Novus Ordo religion? Seems like you're implying that Church dogmas can "evolve" and change over time.

Which is another condemned proposition, not that that means anything to you.
Mother of god, man made.
Immaculate conception, man made.
Assumption, man made.

Does 'evolve' mean something other than 'later in history'? Show those to us in the bible then you might have a point.
 
So Augustine and the other doctors of the Church before Vatican II are irrelevant to the new Novus Ordo religion? Seems like you're implying that Church dogmas can "evolve" and change over time.

Which is another condemned proposition, not that that means anything to you.
Well isn't that the case when so little of scritpure is officially interpretated. This means all dogmas are opened to change. Look at the changes about teachings on Judas over the decades. Now you cannot say he is in hell, I was taught he was in hell.
 
Back
Top