Baltimore Catechism
- Thread starter RayneBeau
- Start date
Atemi
Well-known member
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
can't wait to see it 🍿
Atemi
Well-known member
Already posted it...and it would not matter to you either way.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
Mysterium Fidei
Well-known member
The truth that unbaptized infants are conceived in a state of original sin and that they cannot be freed from original sin without baptism, and consequently that infants are excluded from Heaven if they die unbaptized, is a dogma just as solemn and just as defined as Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.
You can't tell me who are those who die in a state of original sin only, because you know that this is referring explicitly to infants and children who have not reached the age of reason.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - This proposition of the heretic John Wyclif was condemned.
Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”
Honestly, I don't know why I waste my time providing the teaching of the Catholic Church to you, because I know that you reject them. You are not Catholic. You don't believe Catholic doctrine. You don't even follow your Novus Ordo religion's teachings. You follow a made-up religion all your own based on emotionalism and your own opinions. You are the ultimate Protestant.
Last edited:
Mysterium Fidei
Well-known member
Limbo absolutely is a defined doctrine of the Church.
]]
Arch Stanton said:
Praise The Lord!!! Someone finally admits Augustine was/is Catholic!!!
======================End Arch reply
Yes, he certainty was; a full blown member
just a victim of these men;
"deceived men which go forth deceiving others"
which then went forth deceiving others
etc. etc. etc.
and thru idolatry:
and feigned words make merchandise of you:
-----------the church in Thyatira--------
Augustine of Hippo
13 November 354 – 28 August 430)
Rev.2:20
that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication,
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
and Augustine bought it
Hook Line and Sinker
Arch Stanton said:
Praise The Lord!!! Someone finally admits Augustine was/is Catholic!!!
======================End Arch reply
Yes, he certainty was; a full blown member
just a victim of these men;
"deceived men which go forth deceiving others"
which then went forth deceiving others
etc. etc. etc.
Peter says
And through covetousness shall they
with feigned words make merchandise of you:
Paul says
Col.3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;
fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,
and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake
the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
and thru idolatry:
and feigned words make merchandise of you:
-----------the church in Thyatira--------
Augustine of Hippo
13 November 354 – 28 August 430)
Rev.2:20
that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication,
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
and Augustine bought it
Hook Line and Sinker
if you are referring to the limbus patrum, yes.
but not limbus infantium.
Mysterium Fidei
Well-known member
And why would you say this? To say that the limbus infantium does not exist, which was universally taught until Ratzinger, is to deny the defined dogmas of the necessity of baptism and original sin.
The dogma was universally taught by the Fathers of the Church. Their only debate was to distinguish between the " poena damni," which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision and the " poena sensus " which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body.
All of these Councils of the Catholic Church, and the popes who they are associated with taught infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of Hell. They go to a place in Hell called the limbo of the children.
The Council of Florence
The Council of Constance
The Council of Carthage
The Council of Lyons
The Council of Florence
The Council of Trent
The Councils of Florence and Trent constitute dogmatic definitions of the highest teaching authority that unbaptized children in original sin are under the domination of the Devil, and that they cannot be saved without the waters of baptism. Trent specifically anathematizes anyone who would assert exactly what Ratzinger in his document asserts.
It is a Dei Fide dogma of the Church that the souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God, thereby making limbus infantium an absolute theological necessity.
Atemi
Well-known member
Roman Catholic response (regardless of affiliation): "Well, that is your opinion."
This is why Catholic teaching as the arbiter of truth does not work. None of you guys even know what is really, real, official, infallible Catholic teaching.
Everything is an "acorn," or "developing," or "private opinion," or a "misunderstanding."
All a sick joke.
WELCOME TO Catholic Responses 101
when Protestants are to be confuted,
the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority.
Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved
Popes did not speak ex cathedra;
Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors;
And who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar?
Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and
WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES,
HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE {The Catholic Writter} IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH
Always, Always keep in mind
The Doctrine of Mental Reserve
you are under no obligation to tell any Heretic the truth,
nor reveal the True Teachings of the church
to those outside the confines of the
One True and Apostolic Church
when Protestants are to be confuted,
the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority.
Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved
Popes did not speak ex cathedra;
Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors;
And who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar?
Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and
WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES,
HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE {The Catholic Writter} IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH
Always, Always keep in mind
The Doctrine of Mental Reserve
you are under no obligation to tell any Heretic the truth,
nor reveal the True Teachings of the church
to those outside the confines of the
One True and Apostolic Church
Atemi
Well-known member
As a Catholic, this is what I was taught to do.
All who operate with cult like thinking argue this way. Everything is about promoting the sect at any cost, even denying the very teachings of the sect, if necessary. All else is fair play in their minds.
the highlighted statement above is not contrary the Catholic position below. the word 'limbo' is no longer mentioned in the catechism
The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."... catholic encyclopedia
Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes... catholic encyclopedia
The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. (CCC 1261)
Mysterium Fidei
Well-known member
The new Novus Ordo religion, created at Vatican II, has destroyed the Catholic Faith in millions of Catholics. There is no unity in the Novus Ordo religion. They are divided into "liberal" and "conservative" and have no unity in doctrine, worship, disciplines or morals. The typical Novus Ordite believes they are free to pick and choose what to believe and what to reject from Catholic teachings.
The Catholic Faith, on the other hand, is the most dogmatic of all religions. A Catholic is not required to have an explicit knowledge of all the doctrines of the Catholic Church but must simply give assent to the teachings proposed by the Catholic Church based upon the authority of God who has revealed them.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
Sir, you don't get it do you?
I am not denying that infants are conceived and born into Original Sin. I am not denying that those who die in the state of Original Sin cannot enter heaven. Got it?
The question is not "Can anyone enter heaven in the state of Original Sin" the question is "Might God work outside of the Sacrament of Baptism and save an infant who died before baptism through no fault of their own?" I answer in the affirmative--since we saw God do this very thing in the Scriptures. God directly saved the "Good thief." The Good thief was not baptized, and yet Jesus forgave him. The people who crucified Jesus were as far as I know Jewish, and therefore not baptized, yet God forgave them. It is clear, then, that God does not need Baptism. God can and does work outside of the Sacraments. All I am asserting is that Catholics may hope that God will work to save unbaptized children outside of Baptism, wiping away Original Sin, that we may commend unbaptized infants to God's love and mercy.
All of the quotes you cite, then are irrelevant, since I am not denying them. Again, sir, the question is not "Can someone enter heaven with the stain of Original Sin?" The answer is "Absolutely NOT."
The statements you are quoting---answer THAT question, namely "Can someone enter heaven it the state of Original sin?" Answer? NO.
The statements do NOT answer the question "Might God work outside of the Sacrament of Baptism in the case of unbaptized infants to save them?" None of the quotes you cite answer that question, sir. None of the quotes you provided even come CLOSE to answering that question. The quotes are concerned only to show that no one can enter heaven with Original Sin.
Now, find a quote that says something like "God does not work outside of Baptism to save people" "God does not work outside of the Sacraments to save people" etc, and I will shut up. Telling me that popes and bishops and councils have clearly affirmed that no one can enter heaven in the state of Original Sin-----is irrelevant. I am not challenging that and never was.
Do you get it now, sir?
Atemi
Well-known member
I can imagine you sitting if front of St. Augustine and lecturing him about how little he understands really, real Catholicism....which you have figured out, of course!
Please note that Augustine never got a letter from any bishop or pope saying what you say in your post. Surely they got lost in the mail, no?
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
Let's get something clear:
Mysterium has the right to challenge me with what Augustine taught. Both of us at least accept that the ECF has the authority to teach. GIven that Augustine was a bishop, what he said or unsaid should not be taken lightly. The difference between Mysterium and I is that I do not believe that what Augustine taught about unbaptized infants---as binding on my conscience since that was theological speculation rather than official teaching of the Church. Mysterium believes what Augustine taught IS the official teaching of the Church.
Lest you say "See! Catholics disagree on what is and is not official teaching" I reply: Mysterium is part of a fringe, extremist group of Catholics who are not in union union with the Church. Think of his group as sort the Protestant fundamentalist/Bible Thumper version of Catholicism. His group are Catholic fundamentalists. That being said, I have a lot more in common with Mysterium than I do you.
YOU on the other hand as a Protestant accept the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone as the sole, infallible Rule of Faith. You have no right to challenge me with anything an ECF said or unsaid. YOU do not accept their authority to teach or hand on the Faith. What Augustine or any ECF said or unsaid about anything is irrelevant.
If I appealed to Augustine as proof of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, you and your cohorts would laugh me off these boards. Augustine is not the arbiter of what is or is not Scriptural for you.
If by this you mean Augustine's position was not condemned, you are correct. Augustine's position was common belief in the the Church right up through Vatican II.
But common belief does not mean "official teaching." The Church never condemned what he taught, but never officially bound the Christian conscience to it either. To this day, Catholics are free to defend Augustine's position. But they are also free to reject it. I reject it. The modern Church, however, has distanced itself from Augustine's position even though they have never formally condemned it.
Mysterium's mistake is that he is attempting to argue that Augustine's position IS official and therefore binding on the Christian conscience. It isn't.
Mysterium Fidei
Well-known member
Unlike you, I do not put my personal opinions over defined dogmas of the Church, taught by popes, councils, saints, and doctors of the Church.
What you call a "rad trad" is nothing more than being Catholic and holding to the same Catholic Faith as it was taught for nearly 2000 years. But you believe that the faith of millions of Catholics prior to Vatican II is "radical."
I am out for Lent.
Atemi
Well-known member
Sorry, but you ain't exempt from critique. We all know what the ECFs said and it is all on the record. When you publicly oppose them, you bet Christ followers are going to call you out on it.
The irony here is that it is YOU that does not accept their authority to teach or hand on the Faith.
As someone just said:
"YOU do not accept their authority to teach or hand on the Faith."
No duh. He is just a dude. He is not a "Saint", he is only a witness to what was true in his locale and generation, and he is no "Doctor of the Church."
This is why what such ECFs say is totally relevant when it comes to your sect, but mean close to nothing when it comes to Apostolic Christianity.
Thank you for your confession that your sect changed the teaching. I agree with you.
You just single-handedly nullified your sect's claims of being Christ's one, true church. I always say that there are no greater enemies to the Roman Catholic Church than Roman Catholics themselves.
Thank you!
Either Augustine taught in opposition to what the Catholic Church teaches regarding babies who die, or he agreed with them.
They only AFFIRMED him, so we see it is you teaching in opposition to what the Catholic Church taught all the way up to Vatican II.
You must think everyone here is an idiot. We already know your sect officially teaches in direct opposition to what Augustine said was the teaching of the Apostles and the Church.
They will never formally condemn it. LOL. He is their little servant to whip out as needed and to put back in the closet when needed.
Your church says that babies who die without baptism can possibly go to Heaven. They just shrug their shoulders.
Your sect today says there is hope!
Augustine said that the sect of his day taught there was NO hope!
Mutually opposed. Both cannot be true at the same time.
Neither one of us are talking about Augustine's opinion....but the teaching of the church of his day.