Baltimore Catechism

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.
Why do you have to distort what I am saying?

Augustine, like all the other ECF was brilliant. He had a lot to say that remains relevant in the Church today. It is because of Augustine we have our theology of Grace.

That Augustine was brilliant, a saint, and a doctor of the Church does NOT entail he got everything right. I respectfully disagree with his conclusions regarding unbaptized babies. I think it is possible that God may yet save them. All I maintain, sir, is that we need not abandon all hope for infants who die before being baptized. Again, I fail to see what, precisely, is wrong with--and you seem unable to unwilling to explain it--with commending them to the infinite love and mercy of God who wills the salvation of all people.

How would you comfort grieving parents of child who through no fault of their own died before baptism? "There, there.....your child has no hope of salvation. Sorry--but that is the definitive, infallible, and authoritative teaching of the Church..."

You just strike me as a person who sort of gets a kick out of having all the answers--and a theology that is absolutely certain about everything and anything---even when things are not as certain as you like to make us think.
 
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."
Citation? Where does Trent say this? What is the CONTEXT? That is--what, specifically is the canon directed at? Is this a GENERAL statement directed at Protestants who deny the necessity of Baptism, or does it attempt to answer the very different question as to the fate of unbaptized infants? Without knowing the citation off hand, I dare say--the statement is likely a generalized statement directed at Protestants who deny the necessity of water baptism. I am not thinking it is an attempt to answer the very different question of whether it is possible for God to save people who die without water baptism or the fate of unbaptized infants.

And even IF the Council DOES in fact teach this, why MUST we conclude that salvation is NOT POSSIBLE for infants who die before being water baptized?
 
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."


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.
You are something else, you know that? I wonder if you are even too extreme for the rad-trads...
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."
Saint Augustine was a brilliant doctor of the Church. Where, in said statement do you get "Abandon all hope for infants, who, through no fault of their own die before baptism?"

And we already know Augustine believed that salvation was not possible for infants who die before being water baptized. So what? I respectfully disagree with him. I believe it IS possible.

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”
I am confused. Are infants pagan, Jews, heretics, and schematics? Where in this statement do you see anything about the fate of unbaptized infants?
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.
So far, I see nothing in the quotes you provided that answers the very specific question as to whether salvation is POSSIBLE for infants who die before water baptism. What I see are generalized statements directed to heretics.
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."
Where do you get "Unbaptized babies cannot saved" out of that?
 
Well isn't that the case when so little of scripture is officially interpretated.
What it means to "interpret Scripture" has to be articulated.

Scripture, being God's Word can never be exhausted. It is infinite in value. Passages can have a multiplicity of meanings. The Holy Spirit is always taking the Church into a deeper understanding of the Word of God.

Thus, when we talk about the Church "interpreting" Scripture, what we really mean is the Church "judging" a theological doctrine by the Scriptures. This is what the "Extra-ordinary Magisterium" is. It is the Church judging. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, is just the Church teaching; the day to day teachings of the bishops and popes, not only in our time, but throughout time.

We know from Church history, there being only 21 Ecumenical Councils, and two definitive papal definitions, (papal definitions everyone agrees are infallible) that it is rare for the Church to exercise the "Extra-Ordinary Magisterium." When the Church does so, she does not so much "interpret" Scripture, but judge the doctrine in question, examine the scriptural evidence for and against and then render an infallible, definitive, and thus, irreformable decision.

What I would like to ask you is-----if the Church does NOT have the authority to judge doctrines, weigh the scriptural evidence for or against and then render a binding decision, WHO or WHAT does?

And please do not respond with "The Scriptures." That is a non-answer and begs the question--since what is in dispute--is whether the doctrine in question conforms to the Scriptures. Responding with "The Holy Spirit" is also a non-answer and equally as question begging. WHO or WHAT properly manifests the Holy Spirit? The person who says the Scriptures teach A, or the person who says the Scriptures do NOT teach A?
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.
I cannot speak to that. I am not familiar with the debate, nor, quite frankly do I care enough to look in to it. There are far more important things to debate than whether Judas is in Hell. We might as well debate how many angels can dance on the point of a needle rather than waste time debating Judas's eternal fate.
 
What it means to "interpret Scripture" has to be articulated.

Scripture, being God's Word can never be exhausted. It is infinite in value. Passages can have a multiplicity of meanings. The Holy Spirit is always taking the Church into a deeper understanding of the Word of God.

Thus, when we talk about the Church "interpreting" Scripture, what we really mean is the Church "judging" a theological doctrine by the Scriptures. This is what the "Extra-ordinary Magisterium" is. It is the Church judging. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, is just the Church teaching; the day to day teachings of the bishops and popes, not only in our time, but throughout time.

We know from Church history, there being only 21 Ecumenical Councils, and two definitive papal definitions, (papal definitions everyone agrees are infallible) that it is rare for the Church to exercise the "Extra-Ordinary Magisterium." When the Church does so, she does not so much "interpret" Scripture, but judge the doctrine in question, examine the scriptural evidence for and against and then render an infallible, definitive, and thus, irreformable decision.

What I would like to ask you is-----if the Church does NOT have the authority to judge doctrines, weigh the scriptural evidence for or against and then render a binding decision, WHO or WHAT does?

And please do not respond with "The Scriptures." That is a non-answer and begs the question--since what is in dispute--is whether the doctrine in question conforms to the Scriptures. Responding with "The Holy Spirit" is also a non-answer and equally as question begging. WHO or WHAT properly manifests the Holy Spirit? The person who says the Scriptures teach A, or the person who says the Scriptures do NOT teach A?

I cannot speak to that. I am not familiar with the debate, nor, quite frankly do I care enough to look in to it. There are far more important things to debate than whether Judas is in Hell. We might as well debate how many angels can dance on the point of a needle rather than waste time debating Judas's eternal fate.
Seriously you need to articulate what interpret scripture means?

Of course you never want the answer to be scriptures, we have seen how you do not trust them because we do not have the original writings.

Obviously the authority is not your institution as it only passes one scriptural test and that is the bad tree test. Your leaders fail to meet the scriptural requirements for leaders so they are out. I mean really scripture in 99 per cent of cases are clear and easy to understand language that even a child could understand. But no RCs like to pretend it is complicated. God's word tells us we can understand His word, it is not over the seas.

It seems you cannot speak to anything much at all. The RCC taught for centuries that Judas was in hell and that is not the same as debating how many angels dance on a pin head. That is just your way of covering up the very blatant change in teaching about the status of Judas. It is just another cover up by an RC over the way their institution is inconsistent in its teachings. I bet we won't see any RC trotting out the ECFs on the status of Judas, because they will not support the modern RC teaching.
 
Last edited:
Seriously you need to articulate what interpret scripture means?
Well, your statement about "Well, like, you know, so little of Scripture is interpreted" would suggest that I, in fact, DO need to articulate what it means.

Note that I responded to your statement. If you knew what it meant, I presume you would not have made the statement.
 
Well, your statement about "Well, like, you know, so little of Scripture is interpreted" would suggest that I, in fact, DO need to articulate what it means.

Note that I responded to your statement. If you knew what it meant, I presume you would not have made the statement.
I never speak like an uneducated teenager, that is just a false claim. Maybe you think people are writing that way because that is how you speak. Stop putting others down, it was a reasonable statement. So no you did not need to articulate what it means and just shows your contempt.

Well then how much has been infallibly interpeted by your pope and magisterium? Not much just a little. Please list the verses that have been interpreted by them.

You make so many false assumptions about others. Your post once again shows how RCs do not know what love their neighbour means.
 
Last edited:
Who said no teaching of the RCC can ever be changed?

Thank you for unwittingly arguing that this teaching of the Catholic Church has changed.

Who said Augustine, taken in and of himself as an individual bishop and private theological is the abritar of who is or is not Catholic?

In Catholicism, rejecting the Apostolic preaching and rejecting what what Catholic Church unhesitatingly believes means one is opposed to the Catholic Church.

You can call such people like yourself "Catholics" if you like.
 
Fine. And I agree with this

You do not agree. You emphatically disagree.



What does this have to do with the very specific question of infants who die before being water baptized?

That is explicitly what Augustine is addressing.


The above statement is a general statement. It says nothing about unbaptized infants which is a specific question.

Unbaptized infants are the "they" being discussed....as you have already been shown.

So instead of saying "nothing" about them. It is all about them.
 
Why do you have to distort what I am saying?

Augustine, like all the other ECF was brilliant. He had a lot to say that remains relevant in the Church today. It is because of Augustine we have our theology of Grace.

That Augustine was brilliant, a saint, and a doctor of the Church does NOT entail he got everything right. I respectfully disagree with his conclusions regarding unbaptized babies. I think it is possible that God may yet save them. All I maintain, sir, is that we need not abandon all hope for infants who die before being baptized. Again, I fail to see what, precisely, is wrong with--and you seem unable to unwilling to explain it--with commending them to the infinite love and mercy of God who wills the salvation of all people.

How would you comfort grieving parents of child who through no fault of their own died before baptism? "There, there.....your child has no hope of salvation. Sorry--but that is the definitive, infallible, and authoritative teaching of the Church..."

You just strike me as a person who sort of gets a kick out of having all the answers--and a theology that is absolutely certain about everything and anything---even when things are not as certain as you like to make us think.
Yeah, Augustine was great and all, but he just wasn't up to speed on your made-up religion of your opinions, so obviously you know better than him.
 
Citation? Where does Trent say this? What is the CONTEXT? That is--what, specifically is the canon directed at? Is this a GENERAL statement directed at Protestants who deny the necessity of Baptism, or does it attempt to answer the very different question as to the fate of unbaptized infants? Without knowing the citation off hand, I dare say--the statement is likely a generalized statement directed at Protestants who deny the necessity of water baptism. I am not thinking it is an attempt to answer the very different question of whether it is possible for God to save people who die without water baptism or the fate of unbaptized infants.

And even IF the Council DOES in fact teach this, why MUST we conclude that salvation is NOT POSSIBLE for infants who die before being water baptized?
You know what is hilarious? You are the guy who I have never once seen cite any examples of teaching or magisterium to back up your opinions. And of course, like the modernist you are, you try to relativize every dogma. Maybe it depends on what phase of the moon that part of Trent was being held so that it doesn't count.

You just straight up deny the dogmas of the Church.

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

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

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

You and your Novus Ordo sect teaches universal salvation.
 
Citation? Where does Trent say this? What is the CONTEXT? That is--what, specifically is the canon directed at? Is this a GENERAL statement directed at Protestants who deny the necessity of Baptism, or does it attempt to answer the very different question as to the fate of unbaptized infants? Without knowing the citation off hand, I dare say--the statement is likely a generalized statement directed at Protestants who deny the necessity of water baptism. I am not thinking it is an attempt to answer the very different question of whether it is possible for God to save people who die without water baptism or the fate of unbaptized infants.

And even IF the Council DOES in fact teach this, why MUST we conclude that salvation is NOT POSSIBLE for infants who die before being water baptized?
Here's your sources, or two of them anyway, not that Church teaching means anything to you and your made-up religion of opinions.

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons, 1274

"We believe that the true Church is holy, Catholic, apostolic, and one, in which is given one holy baptism and true remission of all sins. We believe also in the true resurrection of this flesh, which now we bear, and in eternal life. We believe also that the one author of the New and the Old Testament, of the Law, and of the Prophets and the Apostles is the omnipotent God and Lord. This is the true Catholic Faith, and this in the above mentioned articles the most holy Roman Church holds and teaches. But because of diverse errors introduced by sorne through ignorance and by others from evil, it (the Church) says and teaches that those who after baptism slip into sin must not be rebaptized, but by true penance attain forgiveness of their sins. Because if they die truly repentant in charity before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for (sins) committed and omitted, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorial or purifying punishments, as Brother John 1 has explained to us. And to relieve punishments of this kind, the offerings of the living faithful are of advantage to these, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, alms, and other duties of piety, which have customarily been performed by the faithful for the other faithful according to the regulations of the Church. However, the souls of those who after having received holy baptism have incurred no stain of sin whatever, also those souls who, after contracting the stain of sin, either while remaining in their bodies or being divested of them, have been cleansed, as we have said above, are received immediately into heaven. The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment "all" men will be brought together with their bodies "before the tribunal of Christ" "to render an account" of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10]."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438.

"It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself, just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

So now I guess, two popes, two councils, and a saint and one of the greatest doctors of the Church are wrong, but your opinion is right.
 
Last edited:
Here's your sources, or two of them anyway, not that Church teaching means anything to you and your made-up religion of opinions.

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons, 1274

"We believe that the true Church is holy, Catholic, apostolic, and one, in which is given one holy baptism and true remission of all sins. We believe also in the true resurrection of this flesh, which now we bear, and in eternal life. We believe also that the one author of the New and the Old Testament, of the Law, and of the Prophets and the Apostles is the omnipotent God and Lord. This is the true Catholic Faith, and this in the above mentioned articles the most holy Roman Church holds and teaches. But because of diverse errors introduced by sorne through ignorance and by others from evil, it (the Church) says and teaches that those who after baptism slip into sin must not be rebaptized, but by true penance attain forgiveness of their sins. Because if they die truly repentant in charity before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for (sins) committed and omitted, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorial or purifying punishments, as Brother John 1 has explained to us. And to relieve punishments of this kind, the offerings of the living faithful are of advantage to these, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, alms, and other duties of piety, which have customarily been performed by the faithful for the other faithful according to the regulations of the Church. However, the souls of those who after having received holy baptism have incurred no stain of sin whatever, also those souls who, after contracting the stain of sin, either while remaining in their bodies or being divested of them, have been cleansed, as we have said above, are received immediately into heaven. The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment "all" men will be brought together with their bodies "before the tribunal of Christ" "to render an account" of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10]."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438.

"It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself, just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

So now I guess, two popes, two councils, and a saint and one of the greatest doctors of the Church are wrong, but your opinion is right.
All of the quotes above are generalized statements concerning those who had the Gospel preached to them and could have chosen to repent, etc, something I am not questioning, debating, or otherwise denying. None of them speak, contextually from what I can see to the question of unbaptized infants.

Do you have any statements that directly speak to the very specific question of unbaptized infants? Any statements that tell us that there is absolutely, positively NO hope of salvation for infants who die before Baptism---when they had no opportunity to even choose to be baptized and repent in the first place? Any statements that tell us that infants who die without baptism do not pass GO, do not collect $200, and must go directly to jail? Any statements that tell us infants who die without baptism proceeded directly to Hell and suffer, or otherwise go to LIMBO? Any statements at all---that DIRECTLY speak to the question of unbaptized infants and their fate--and definitively, clearly, and unapologetically tell us that we are to abandon all hope for all infants who die without baptism? Do you have ANYTHING at all that speaks to that, or just the generalized statements above--that I have never denied?

The person who has a quote for everything--should easily be able to produce something that directly and unequivocally speaks to the specific question of unbaptized infants.
 
You know what is hilarious? You are the guy who I have never once seen cite any examples of teaching or magisterium to back up your opinions. And of course, like the modernist you are, you try to relativize every dogma. Maybe it depends on what phase of the moon that part of Trent was being held so that it doesn't count.

You just straight up deny the dogmas of the Church.

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

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

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

You and your Novus Ordo sect teaches universal salvation.
No we do not teach "universal salvation."

What we do not do is place limits on God. We acknowledge the conditions and limits that God has placed on us, while asserting that those limits and conditions do not apply to God.

Hence, if God chooses to save an unbaptized infant by some other means besides water baptism, who are you--or your rad-trads to tell God he can't do that? That is what you are in essence saying here: "God is not not allowed to save anyone outside of the Sacramental System becasue God has bound us to the Sacramental System." Since when is God bound to anything, sir?

Where does the Church teach that God is not allowed to save people outside of the Sacramental System or otherwise make exceptions to His own rules?
 
Yeah, Augustine was great and all, but he just wasn't up to speed on your made-up religion of your opinions, so obviously you know better than him.
I do not, but the Church does.

Please show me a direct quote that answers the very specific question of the fate of unbaptized infants. So far, all you have show me are generalized statements that I do not dispute.
 
Funny how you call St. Augustine and the Catholic Church of his day, "rad-trads."

Proceed to saw off the branch you sit upon...
Augustine wasn't a rad-trad. Augustine was just trying to work through the issue if unbaptized infants. I respectfully disagree with his conclusions. That is all. Why am I not allowed to disagree with Augustine?
 
Augustine wasn't a rad-trad.

He explicitly contradicts you...along with the Catholic Church in which he served as bishop.

He explicitly claims the very thing you mock Mysterium for believing.

Augustine was just trying to work through the issue if unbaptized infants.

That is NOT what he said.

I respectfully disagree with his conclusions.

Yes. We know lay Catholics believe they understand Catholicism more than those they declare to be Saints and Doctors.


Why am I not allowed to disagree with Augustine?

He explained why:

'If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.'"

"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it (the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ"



"Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ."


Augustines declares it is NOT him you disagree with.
 
All of the quotes above are generalized statements concerning those who had the Gospel preached to them and could have chosen to repent, etc, something I am not questioning, debating, or otherwise denying. None of them speak, contextually from what I can see to the question of unbaptized infants.
You really are clueless, aren't you? These are not "generalized statements." This is not the idle ramblings of some idiot apostate "pope" flying back to Rome from after taking part in some native pagan ritual.

This teaching of the fate of the unbaptized infants I posted is from two ecumenical councils of the Church presided over and approved by two popes. It is listed in Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogmas.

Not that the teaching of the Church means anything to you and your religion of opinions.

Do you have any statements that directly speak to the very specific question of unbaptized infants? Any statements that tell us that there is absolutely, positively NO hope of salvation for infants who die before Baptism---when they had no opportunity to even choose to be baptized and repent in the first place? Any statements that tell us that infants who die without baptism do not pass GO, do not collect $200, and must go directly to jail? Any statements that tell us infants who die without baptism proceeded directly to Hell and suffer, or otherwise go to LIMBO? Any statements at all---that DIRECTLY speak to the question of unbaptized infants and their fate--and definitively, clearly, and unapologetically tell us that we are to abandon all hope for all infants who die without baptism? Do you have ANYTHING at all that speaks to that, or just the generalized statements above--that I have never denied?

The person who has a quote for everything--should easily be able to produce something that directly and unequivocally speaks to the specific question of unbaptized infants.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438: "The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments."

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons, 1274: The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.

Who are those who die with original sin only? Who has lived beyond the age of reason that has not committed any actual sin, not even any venial sin? This is talking about infants who die without baptism.
 
No we do not teach "universal salvation."
Yes you do. Your great "saint" Wojtyła explicitly and repeatedly taught universal salvation.
What we do not do is place limits on God. We acknowledge the conditions and limits that God has placed on us, while asserting that those limits and conditions do not apply to God.

Hence, if God chooses to save an unbaptized infant by some other means besides water baptism, who are you--or your rad-trads to tell God he can't do that? That is what you are in essence saying here: "God is not not allowed to save anyone outside of the Sacramental System becasue God has bound us to the Sacramental System." Since when is God bound to anything, sir?

Where does the Church teach that God is not allowed to save people outside of the Sacramental System or otherwise make exceptions to His own rules?
Limbo is the defined teaching of the Church. There was no debate about the existence of Limbo in the Church, but rather about whether or not souls that go there suffer any pain or loss. The Augustinian view was that they did suffer, however mildly, some or some loss of the sense of the Beatific vision. St. Thomas and others held that in Limbo souls are in a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity.
 
Back
Top