Escaping Catholic Totalitarianism

[Jehanne]

On the subject of unbaptized babies, the Church simply does not teach that God brings them to Heaven and never has. It has this "reason to hope" clause in the Catechism to pacify the justified empathetic concerns of compassionate people without actually saying anything definitive. The very fact that the Church hasn't dogmatically defined that unbaptized children go to Heaven is in itself a scandalous indictment of the God of Catholicism. The fact that the Church does not do this is because it very likely would be a dogmatic contradiction when it comes to previous Church teaching on original sin and the necessity of some form of Baptism for salvation. The consensus of Catholics today means nothing, if the consensus of those who identify as Catholic meant anything, Francis would at this very moment be composing an encyclical extolling the virtues of contraception since so many Catholics use it and see nothing wrong with it. 

The Catholic Church has most definitively taught that unbaptized infants do not go to Heaven, which is life eternal:

 “If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ 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. For when the Lord says ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God,’ what Catholic will doubt that one who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ will be a partner of the Devil?” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger , 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

And, just in case you need to hear about the Limbo of the Children from a Pope's mouth, here's Sixtus V:

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment "do not kill" was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? (Popes believe in the limbo of the little ones) Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and has taken away the service to God by His creature?  who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty? Who will not abhor the cruelty and unrestrained debauchery of impious men who have arrived into such a state of mind that they procure poisons in order to extinguish the conceived fetuses within the viscera, and pour them out, trying to provoke by a nefarious crime a violent and untimely death and killing of their progeny.  Finally who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the crimes of those who with poisons, potions and evil actions (for example tying up Fallopian tubes) sterilize women or impede that they conceive or give birth by pernicious medicines and drugs? (for example using hormonal abortive contraceptives synthesized from Dioscorea composita grown in Mexico). Sorcerers and evil magicians (Holy Father makes equal or matches the aforementioned people with sorcerers) says the Lord to Saint Moses, you will not suffer, allow and tolerate to live: because they oppose overly shamefully against God's will and,  as St Jerome says, while nature receives seed, after having received nurtures it, nurtured body distinguishes in members, meanwhile in the narrowness of the uterus the hand of God is always at work who is Creator of both body and soul and who molded, made and wanted this child and meanwhile the goodness of the Potter, that is of God, is impiously and overly despised by these people. Saint Ambrose says that it is no small and trivial gift of God to give children in order to propagate mankind. It is a Divine gift the fecundity of childbearing woman and at the same time by this cruel and inhuman crime parents are deprived of their offspring that they have engendered; the engendered children of their life; mothers of the rewards of maternity and marriage; earth of its cultivators; the world of those who would know it; the Church of those that would make it grow and prosper and be happy with an increased number of devoted faithful. Therefore for a good reason the Sixth Synod of Constantinople has decreed that persons who give abortive medicine (and abortive contraceptives) and those who receive and use poisons that kill fetuses are subject to punishment applied to murderers and it was sanctioned by the old Council of Lleida that those that were preoccupied to kill fetuses conceived from adultery or would extinguish them in the wombs of mothers with potions, if afterwards with repentance would recur to the goodness and meekness of the Church, should humbly weep for their sins for the rest of their lives (and pray) and if they were Clerics,  they should not be allowed to recuperate their ministry (now days dispensation from irregularity is given by the Apostolic See with a long penance) and they are subject to all Ecclesiastic law's and profane law's grave punishments for those who nefariously plot to kill fetuses in the uterus of childbearing women or try to prevent women from conceiving or try to expel the conceived fetuses from the womb.

http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

[Astonished]

Wait, so the fact that they pulled that whole unbaptized infant and limbo idea out of their ass doesn't bother anybody?

[Jehanne]

Wait, so the fact that they pulled that whole unbaptized infant and limbo idea out of their ass doesn't bother anybody?

Religion is like silly putty; you can twist and mold it into whatever you want it to be.

[Astonished]

Wait, so the fact that they pulled that whole unbaptized infant and limbo idea out of their ass doesn't bother anybody?

Religion is like silly putty; you can twist and mold it into whatever you want it to be.

Every time someone calls this make-it-up-as-you-go wishful thinking 'truth', there needs to be some kind of corrective electrical shock applied.

[Aoi Magi]

What does eating meat on a specific day have anything to do with rejecting anyone? If rejecting God is the important criterion, why does the meat thing even matter?

When people believe this stuff it is scary indeed, but if one takes just a step back and looks at it objectively... it starts to look like just a bad joke.

[Astonished]

What does eating meat on a specific day have anything to do with rejecting anyone? If rejecting God is the important criterion, why does the meat thing even matter?

When people believe this stuff it is scary indeed, but if one takes just a step back and looks at it objectively... it starts to look like just a bad joke.

And for believers, looking at it objectively is VERBOTEN!

[Redoubtable]

What does eating meat on a specific day have anything to do with rejecting anyone? If rejecting God is the important criterion, why does the meat thing even matter?

When people believe this stuff it is scary indeed, but if one takes just a step back and looks at it objectively... it starts to look like just a bad joke.

This is how apologists often explain it. Christ gave the Church the power to "bind and loose" so when the Church institutes certain practices and imposes certain penalties, the faithful are morally obligated to obey. One of these practices is fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and refraining from eating meat on Ash Wednesday and every Friday of Lent. To deliberately eat meat on one of these prohibited days is considered a sin (it's not a sin if you honestly forgot) and a grave matter also, so a mortal sin as I've explained previously in this thread if the other conditions are met. It's considered a mortal sin simply because the Church says so. The Church could decide tomorrow that, actually, it's just a venial sin, or could discontinue the practice altogether. So apologists would say that it isn't just the physical act of eating meat on a prohibited day that is a grave sin, but the fact that you are brazenly disobeying the Church and by extension God. That is how they justify the gravity attached to an act that seems so trivial. 

To me this is almost like saying someone convicted of littering is to be punished in some obscenely harsh way because by littering they showed brazen disrespect for the law, and by extension they demonstrated betrayal of the nation by showing contempt for the law.

---

Wait, so the fact that they pulled that whole unbaptized infant and limbo idea out of their ass doesn't bother anybody?

Well, the thing is I generally like to play the debate game by Catholic rules, it's the only terms that are understood and my criticisms not dismissed outright as claiming I don't understand Catholic teaching, which I do, very well. So in this case in Catholic thinking they don't believe they are "pulling it out of their ass" they call this a "development of doctrine" where that which was considered implicit in some way (even an obscure way) is made explicit. In practice, this is basically license to make nearly anything up if there is even some remote kernel in scripture or tradition that can conceivably in some universe justify it.

---

On the subject of unbaptized babies, the Church simply does not teach that God brings them to Heaven and never has. It has this "reason to hope" clause in the Catechism to pacify the justified empathetic concerns of compassionate people without actually saying anything definitive. The very fact that the Church hasn't dogmatically defined that unbaptized children go to Heaven is in itself a scandalous indictment of the God of Catholicism. The fact that the Church does not do this is because it very likely would be a dogmatic contradiction when it comes to previous Church teaching on original sin and the necessity of some form of Baptism for salvation. The consensus of Catholics today means nothing, if the consensus of those who identify as Catholic meant anything, Francis would at this very moment be composing an encyclical extolling the virtues of contraception since so many Catholics use it and see nothing wrong with it. 

The Catholic Church has most definitively taught that unbaptized infants do not go to Heaven, which is life eternal:

 “If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ 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. For when the Lord says ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God,’ what Catholic will doubt that one who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ will be a partner of the Devil?” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger , 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

And, just in case you need to hear about the Limbo of the Children from a Pope's mouth, here's Sixtus V:

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment "do not kill" was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? (Popes believe in the limbo of the little ones) Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and has taken away the service to God by His creature?  who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty? Who will not abhor the cruelty and unrestrained debauchery of impious men who have arrived into such a state of mind that they procure poisons in order to extinguish the conceived fetuses within the viscera, and pour them out, trying to provoke by a nefarious crime a violent and untimely death and killing of their progeny.  Finally who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the crimes of those who with poisons, potions and evil actions (for example tying up Fallopian tubes) sterilize women or impede that they conceive or give birth by pernicious medicines and drugs? (for example using hormonal abortive contraceptives synthesized from Dioscorea composita grown in Mexico). Sorcerers and evil magicians (Holy Father makes equal or matches the aforementioned people with sorcerers) says the Lord to Saint Moses, you will not suffer, allow and tolerate to live: because they oppose overly shamefully against God's will and,  as St Jerome says, while nature receives seed, after having received nurtures it, nurtured body distinguishes in members, meanwhile in the narrowness of the uterus the hand of God is always at work who is Creator of both body and soul and who molded, made and wanted this child and meanwhile the goodness of the Potter, that is of God, is impiously and overly despised by these people. Saint Ambrose says that it is no small and trivial gift of God to give children in order to propagate mankind. It is a Divine gift the fecundity of childbearing woman and at the same time by this cruel and inhuman crime parents are deprived of their offspring that they have engendered; the engendered children of their life; mothers of the rewards of maternity and marriage; earth of its cultivators; the world of those who would know it; the Church of those that would make it grow and prosper and be happy with an increased number of devoted faithful. Therefore for a good reason the Sixth Synod of Constantinople has decreed that persons who give abortive medicine (and abortive contraceptives) and those who receive and use poisons that kill fetuses are subject to punishment applied to murderers and it was sanctioned by the old Council of Lleida that those that were preoccupied to kill fetuses conceived from adultery or would extinguish them in the wombs of mothers with potions, if afterwards with repentance would recur to the goodness and meekness of the Church, should humbly weep for their sins for the rest of their lives (and pray) and if they were Clerics,  they should not be allowed to recuperate their ministry (now days dispensation from irregularity is given by the Apostolic See with a long penance) and they are subject to all Ecclesiastic law's and profane law's grave punishments for those who nefariously plot to kill fetuses in the uterus of childbearing women or try to prevent women from conceiving or try to expel the conceived fetuses from the womb.

http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

These are valuable quotes Jehanne, but I fear I'm already aware of the unbelievably frustrating and slithery answers from the Apologists:

In the case of the quote from Pope Sixtus they would say it is not authoritative because his statement does not conform to the criteria for Papal Infallibility laid down in Vatican I.

And in regards to the quote from Pope Zosimus they would argue that while indeed an infant without any sort of baptism would be denied entry to Heaven, they would posit the nebulous concept of "baptism of desire" (a concept traditionally applied to would-be converts to the Church who died prior to becoming a formal member through baptism) and say that there is the possibility that God assumes their desire to be baptized and so saves them in this way. It's such a whacky concept, but I've seen many Catholics take intellectual refuge in it on this subject. Since the Church has not formally denied the application of this concept of baptism of desire to infants Catholics still see some wiggle room to hope infants are saved, but I doubt either of the Popes you quoted would agree with it. 

[Astonished]

What does eating meat on a specific day have anything to do with rejecting anyone? If rejecting God is the important criterion, why does the meat thing even matter?

When people believe this stuff it is scary indeed, but if one takes just a step back and looks at it objectively... it starts to look like just a bad joke.

This is how apologists often explain it. Christ gave the Church the power to "bind and loose" so when the Church institutes certain practices and imposes certain penalties, the faithful are morally obligated to obey. One of these practices is fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and refraining from eating meat on Ash Wednesday and every Friday of Lent. To deliberately eat meat on one of these prohibited days is considered a sin (it's not a sin if you honestly forgot) and a grave matter also, so a mortal sin as I've explained previously in this thread if the other conditions are met. It's considered a mortal sin simply because the Church says so. The Church could decide tomorrow that, actually, it's just a venial sin, or could discontinue the practice altogether. So apologists would say that it isn't just the physical act of eating meat on a prohibited day that is a grave sin, but the fact that you are brazenly disobeying the Church and by extension God. That is how they justify the gravity attached to an act that seems so trivial. 

To me this is almost like saying someone convicted of littering is to be punished in some obscenely harsh way because by littering they showed brazen disrespect for the law, and by extension they demonstrated betrayal of the nation by showing contempt for the law.

---

Wait, so the fact that they pulled that whole unbaptized infant and limbo idea out of their ass doesn't bother anybody?

Well, the thing is I generally like to play the debate game by Catholic rules, it's the only terms that are understood and my criticisms not dismissed outright as claiming I don't understand Catholic teaching, which I do, very well. So in this case in Catholic thinking they don't believe they are "pulling it out of their ass" they call this a "development of doctrine" where that which was considered implicit in some way (even an obscure way) is made explicit. In practice, this is basically license to make nearly anything up if there is even some remote kernel in scripture or tradition that can conceivably in some universe justify it.

---

The Catholic Church has most definitively taught that unbaptized infants do not go to Heaven, which is life eternal:


And, just in case you need to hear about the Limbo of the Children from a Pope's mouth, here's Sixtus V:



http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

These are valuable quotes Jehanne, but I fear I'm already aware of the unbelievably frustrating and slithery answers from the Apologists:

In the case of the quote from Pope Sixtus they would say it is not authoritative because his statement does not conform to the criteria for Papal Infallibility laid down in Vatican I.

And in regards to the quote from Pope Zosimus they would argue that while indeed an infant without any sort of baptism would be denied entry to Heaven, they would posit the nebulous concept of "baptism of desire" (a concept traditionally applied to would-be converts to the Church who died prior to becoming a formal member through baptism) and say that there is the possibility that God assumes their desire to be baptized and so saves them in this way. It's such a whacky concept, but I've seen many Catholics take intellectual refuge in it on this subject. Since the Church has not formally denied the application of this concept of baptism of desire to infants Catholics still see some wiggle room to hope infants are saved, but I doubt either of the Popes you quoted would agree with it. 

Ah, just ask the Mormons to do it post-mortem. They might not even need you to ask, actually.

[Jehanne]

[quote pid='1479327' dateline='1483323161']
http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

These are valuable quotes Jehanne, but I fear I'm already aware of the unbelievably frustrating and slithery answers from the Apologists:

In the case of the quote from Pope Sixtus they would say it is not authoritative because his statement does not conform to the criteria for Papal Infallibility laid down in Vatican I.

And in regards to the quote from Pope Zosimus they would argue that while indeed an infant without any sort of baptism would be denied entry to Heaven, they would posit the nebulous concept of "baptism of desire" (a concept traditionally applied to would-be converts to the Church who died prior to becoming a formal member through baptism) and say that there is the possibility that God assumes their desire to be baptized and so saves them in this way. It's such a whacky concept, but I've seen many Catholics take intellectual refuge in it on this subject. Since the Church has not formally denied the application of this concept of baptism of desire to infants Catholics still see some wiggle room to hope infants are saved, but I doubt either of the Popes you quoted would agree with it. 

Then these co-called apologists need to read the text of Vatican I:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

This whole concept is one of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which, like the extraordinary Magisterium, is supposed to be infallible.  In this respect, Pope Sixtus did not have to be speaking (from the Chair) in an infallible manner; rather, he was a witness to the infallible teaching of the Church, in that he was simply reiterating what had been the "ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church":

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

I have much better things to do with my time than playing these word games; I hope that you do too as well!

[Redoubtable]

[quote pid='1479327' dateline='1483323161']
http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

These are valuable quotes Jehanne, but I fear I'm already aware of the unbelievably frustrating and slithery answers from the Apologists:

In the case of the quote from Pope Sixtus they would say it is not authoritative because his statement does not conform to the criteria for Papal Infallibility laid down in Vatican I.

And in regards to the quote from Pope Zosimus they would argue that while indeed an infant without any sort of baptism would be denied entry to Heaven, they would posit the nebulous concept of "baptism of desire" (a concept traditionally applied to would-be converts to the Church who died prior to becoming a formal member through baptism) and say that there is the possibility that God assumes their desire to be baptized and so saves them in this way. It's such a whacky concept, but I've seen many Catholics take intellectual refuge in it on this subject. Since the Church has not formally denied the application of this concept of baptism of desire to infants Catholics still see some wiggle room to hope infants are saved, but I doubt either of the Popes you quoted would agree with it. 

Then these co-called apologists need to read the text of Vatican I:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

This whole concept is one of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which, like the extraordinary Magisterium, is supposed to be infallible.  In this respect, Pope Sixtus did not have to be speaking (from the Chair) in an infallible manner; rather, he was a witness to the infallible teaching of the Church, in that he was simply reiterating what had been the "ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church":

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

I have much better things to do with my time than playing these word games; I hope that you do too as well!

Yes, I agree with your points, but I guess it's just frustrating when you know the serpentine way certain Catholics try to use and slither out of a controversy. Good point in bringing up the Ordinary Magisterium because even practicing Catholics don't know what it is or that it carries an aspect of infallibility also; they just think the Pope is infallible and don't recognize it anywhere else. I think bringing up the Ordinary Magisterium and its collective silence, acceptance, or teaching on a particular issue is the strongest argument in favor of showing serious moral and doctrinal discontinuity in the Church.