Co- Redemptrix

[BreadOfLife]

Hi BOL, I agree that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and what this really means is that God withdrew His grace away from Pharaoh and leaving him to his corrupted self. I agree that water baptism is mandatory, its biblical. But in truth, the good thief was not an exception. He was saved under the old law. The good thief, upon dying, went to Abraham's Bosom. This is where Jesus, after He died, He went to preach the Good News to the old testament saints, waiting to be delivered. The church of Jesus Christ did not commence until the day of Pentecost i.e. Acts chapter 1 and 2.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
God CAN and DOES make exceptions. Remember what Jesus told the Pharisees:

John 9:41
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

Do you believe that babies go to Hell?
How about a severely retarded unbaptized person.
How about aborted babies?

 

[truth333]

Do you believe that babies go to Hell?
How about a severely retarded unbaptized person.
How about aborted babies?

^^
I would like to correspond with you on this topic but first, do you acknowledge that the good thief was saved under the old law?

 

[BreadOfLife]

^^
I would like to correspond with you on this topic but first, do you acknowledge that the good thief was saved under the old law?

No - the passage is clear that he was saved by Christ.
There is no indication that he was even Jewish or an observer of the Law.

Jesus told him that he would be saved - not that he was already saved.

 

[truth333]

No - the passage is clear that he was saved by Christ.
There is no indication that he was even Jewish or an observer of the Law.

Jesus told him that he would be saved - not that he was already saved.

He was saved upon his confession to Jesus. There are only two covenants, the old and the new. The new began in Acts ch. 1 and 2.

Luke 23:40-43 But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

On Good Friday, Jesus did not go up to heaven, He went down into hell, to the bosom of Abraham to preach the good news to the souls of the old testament saints, who where waiting to be delivered by Jesus.

 

[michaelvpardo]

FALSE.

One cannot be saved without repentance. We must come to god on our knees, so to speak.
We don't strut over to Him, demand salvation - then repent. First comes repentance - then salvation

PS - those who nitpick about bold or italics on a discussion forum usually do so because they have run out of ammunition . . .

Sorry, wrong again, we don't come to God at all, He comes to us. That's what grace is all about. No one seeks God, but I can understand why you don't get it.

 

[truth333]

Sorry, wrong again, we don't come to God at all, He comes to us. That's what grace is all about. No one seeks God, but I can understand why you don't get it.

For the purpose of clarity, a man must respond to the grace given by God. God only gives grace to men of good will.

Apocalypse 3:20 Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

God does not give graces to men of bad will. Men of good will do seek God.

Acts 16:6-10 And when they had passed through Phrygia, and the country of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia. And when they were come into Mysia, they attempted to go into Bythynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not. And when they had passed through Mysia, they went down to Troas. [9] And a vision was shewed to Paul in the night, which was a man of Macedonia standing and beseeching him, and saying: Pass over into Macedonia, and help us. And as soon as he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, being assured that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

 

[Helen]

One cannot be saved without repentance. We must come to god on our knees, so to speak.
We don't strut over to Him, demand salvation - then repent. First comes repentance - then salvation

Yes I agree.
Do you think that repentance starts with "seeing".
I mean, until we see that we need saving, we bob along in life thinking we are okay.

I remember beginning to "see" that I had a need, and it was followed with a great longing to be 'with-Him' at the end. I started 'seeing' that life is more than living, raising kids and dying...there must be some greater Plan.
Then the feeling of unworthiness took hold, and I knew I needed something to bridge that gap for me so I would one day end up in heaven.

I still didn't know how...then as you say...I fell on my knees, told God that I was not fit and needed washing clean by the blood of Jesus. ( obviously crying)
When I got off from my knees I felt as light as a feather...the love relationship had begun.
I do believe the God breaks us before He makes us..
I do agree with Michaelv that God must have first been doing the 'calling'...and I then began to start 'seeing' a need. ( He also is the only one who can 'open' our eyes to see.

"No man comes to Me except the Father draw him."

 

[truth333]

Do you believe that babies go to Hell?
How about a severely retarded unbaptized person.
How about aborted babies?

BOL, in truth, you actually hold the Pelagian heresy.

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church,where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

Infants who die without baptism (and thus in the state of original sin only) descend to hell, but to a place where there is no fire. This is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1596)

Here Pope Pius VI condemns the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the fires of Hell. At the same time, he confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell) called the limbo of the children. They do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment is eternal separation from God.

The idea that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – since they are in a state of original sin – has been specifically anathematized.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “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…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Eugene IV here defines infallibly that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

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.”- Condemned (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422.)

This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without sacramental (i.e. water) baptism cannot possibly be saved. He was anathematized for this assertion.

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.” (Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

Do baby infants go to Limbo if not baptized? Yes.

 

[101G]

@truth333. I read your article link. "Do baby infants go to Limbo if not baptized? Yes". if this is the thinking of catholic leadership, I feel sorry for all of you. scriptures are clear, salvation is a "GIFT", Romans 9:9-12 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger". see, it not you who come to God, but he that come, or call to you. and understanding God's Grace and his LOVE, for God is not unjust. it's God call whom he accepts, and I believe God is a JUST caller. my question, is God greater than sin?. YES. so let God be God.

Peace in Christ Jesus.

 

[Richard_oti]

<snip>
Nor is there any reason for me to defend Christ's doctrines when He is fully able to defend His own. I entered this discussion only because the very notion of a "co-redemptrix" is an assault upon my friend and my Lord that is an offense ... <snip>

Aren't the above two statements somewhat contradictory?

to all who understand the price the Lord paid for our freedom, something of a reflexive reaction to a denigration of our Lord.

Is "reflexive" a reaction of "spirit" or of "flesh"? No offense intended.

<snip>

However, I do concur regarding the great price that was paid!

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL, in truth, you actually hold the Pelagian heresy.

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church,where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

Infants who die without baptism (and thus in the state of original sin only) descend to hell, but to a place where there is no fire. This is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1596)

Here Pope Pius VI condemns the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the fires of Hell. At the same time, he confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell) called the limbo of the children. They do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment is eternal separation from God.

The idea that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – since they are in a state of original sin – has been specifically anathematized.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “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…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Eugene IV here defines infallibly that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

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.”- Condemned (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422.)

This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without sacramental (i.e. water) baptism cannot possibly be saved. He was anathematized for this assertion.

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.” (Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

Do baby infants go to Limbo if not baptized? Yes.

Then YOU don't know what Pelagianism is.

Pelagiaism is the belief that our nature was not tainted by Original Sin - and that we can do good on our own, apart from God.
This is NOT what I believe - nor is it an idea that I am defending here.

As for the quotes you posted - there has NEVER been a doctrine that says unbaptized infants go to Limbo or to Hell - or to Heaven. Limbo was never a doctrine - but simply a way of reasoning what Scripture is silent about.

I suggest you do your homework . . .

 

[truth333]

@truth333. I read your article link. "Do baby infants go to Limbo if not baptized? Yes". if this is the thinking of catholic leadership, I feel sorry for all of you. scriptures are clear, salvation is a "GIFT", Romans 9:9-12 "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger". see, it not you who come to God, but he that come, or call to you. and understanding God's Grace and his LOVE, for God is not unjust. it's God call whom he accepts, and I believe God is a JUST caller. my question, is God greater than sin?. YES. so let God be God.

Peace in Christ Jesus.

These verses will forever be stuck to you, 101G.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Ecclesiastes 1:15 The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite."

What is being said in Romans 9:9-12, regarding children, not born, who have not committed good or bad acts, yes, they can be called by God. But when they are born they are born, as children of Wrath i.e. born in original sin [Ephesians 2:3]. And yes, being called, it is a gift, a free act of the mercy of God, corrupted man had not part. Here is the commentary on these verses.

The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version; Commentary by Bishop Richard Challoner, 1749-52,
[11] "Not yet born": By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined; nor to any prerogative of birth, or any forgoing merits. For as, antecedently to his grace, he sees no merits in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath: there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other.

Man must cooperate with the grace freely given and be water baptized.

Titus 2:11-14 For the grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men; Instructing us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world, Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works.

Titus 3:4-8 But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared: Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting. It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works.

To further demonstrate the point of being called, look at Romans 9:6-7.

Romans 9:6-7 Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel: Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Commentary: [6] "All are not Israelites": Not all, who are the carnal seed of Israel, are true Israelites in God's account: who, as by his free grace, he heretofore preferred Isaac before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, so he could, and did by the like free grace, election and mercy, raise up spiritual children by faith to Abraham and Israel, from among the Gentiles, and prefer them before the carnal Jews.

Matthew 13:11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.

2 Corinthians 4:3 And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, …

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[truth333]

Then YOU don't know what Pelagianism is.

Pelagiaism is the belief that our nature was not tainted by Original Sin - and that we can do good on our own, apart from God.
This is NOT what I believe - nor is it an idea that I am defending here.

As for the quotes you posted - there has NEVER been a doctrine that says unbaptized infants go to Limbo or to Hell - or to Heaven. Limbo was never a doctrine - but simply a way of reasoning what Scripture is silent about.

I suggest you do your homework . . .

Lol! Is this having your cake and eating it too!? "This is NOT what I believe - nor is it an idea that I am defending here."

You are accusing me of not knowing what Pelagianism is, when in fact, you confirmed and believe what Pelagius taught, that our nature was not corrupted by original sin, which would mean that we don't need water baptism. This is too funny! To prove my point look at your comment to me.

Your quote:
Do you believe that babies go to Hell?
How about a severely retarded unbaptized person.
How about aborted babies?

According to you, an unbaptized baby or person, does not have a corrupted nature from original sin! And you also said there never was a doctrine that says unbaptized babies don't go to hell. Can't you read? Pope Eugene IV, says that there is no other help for a baby other than water baptism, which would snatch the baby from the dominion of the devil. Its ex cathedra! Lol!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “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…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

You didn't even read what was posted. All the homework that I did for you is absolutely correct and spot on! You actually deny dogma! Wow!

Here is your homework for you, one more time. I suggest you do your homework!

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church,where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

Infants who die without baptism (and thus in the state of original sin only) descend to hell, but to a place where there is no fire. This is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1596)

Here Pope Pius VI condemns the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the fires of Hell. At the same time, he confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell) called the limbo of the children. They do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment is eternal separation from God.

The idea that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – since they are in a state of original sin – has been specifically anathematized.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “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…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Eugene IV here defines infallibly that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

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.”- Condemned (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422.)

This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that infants who die without sacramental (i.e. water)baptism cannot possibly be saved. He was anathematized for this assertion.

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.” (Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

 

[Helen]

...just read post #133
Good heavens, what a complicated Religion you guys have!!
Where is "the simplicity in Christ"?

2 Cor 11:3-
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

 

[truth333]

...just read post #133
Good heavens, what a complicated Religion you guys have!!
Where is "the simplicity in Christ"?

2 Cor 11:3-
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

There is nothing complicated about it. But then again this is why you love being a protester because it give you complete freedom to do what ever you want, you know, once saved always saved. This reminds me of the children of Israel under Samuel i.e. 1 Samuel ch. 8. And the contradiction of Korah.

I noticed that your likes almost match your messages. This is revealing to me because Jesus said that they will hate you for my sake. And God is not a respecter of person either.

 

[Helen]

I noticed that your likes almost match your messages. This is revealing to me because Jesus said that they will hate you for my sake. And God is not a respecter of person either.

I do admit I "like" a person's post if I find it has spoken something to me.
I also do a "like" when I want them to know that I appreciate their post, yet maybe I have nothing to say back in a response to them.

I also "like" a person's post when it make me chuckle.
Sometimes this Site gets a bit bogged down and "heavy" ..so when someone is humorous it lightens that atmosphere a bit...I like that.

When I posted what I wrote about your religion being complicated...it seemed to me in reading your's and @BreadOfLife 's that you have so much to learn and remember in your doctrine etc...I could never retain all that stuff it would wear me out.
Maybe the protestants became protestants because they were dumber than the others...and just all too complicate, so maybe some protested, and as you say "did their own thing".
From where I sit it seem like it could have been a wise thing and maybe not quite so dumb after all. lol

 

[Helen]

Mrs. Confusion, suffers from relativism. I bet you actually believe that 1 + 1 could be 3.

Haha! Now that is well worth a "like"

 

[BreadOfLife]

Lol! Is this having your cake and eating it too!? "This is NOT what I believe - nor is it an idea that I am defending here."

You are accusing me of not knowing what Pelagianism is, when in fact, you confirmed and believe what Pelagius taught, that our nature was not corrupted by original sin, which would mean that we don't need water baptism. This is too funny! To prove my point look at your comment to me.

Your quote:
Do you believe that babies go to Hell?
How about a severely retarded unbaptized person.
How about aborted babies?

According to you, an unbaptized baby or person, does not have a corrupted nature from original sin! And you also said there never was a doctrine that says unbaptized babies don't go to hell. Can't you read? Pope Eugene IV, says that there is no other help for a baby other than water baptism, which would snatch the baby from the dominion of the devil. Its ex cathedra! Lol!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “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…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

You didn't even read what was posted. All the homework that I did for you is absolutely correct and spot on! You actually deny dogma! Wow!

Here is your homework for you, one more time. I suggest you do your homework!

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church,where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

Infants who die without baptism (and thus in the state of original sin only) descend to hell, but to a place where there is no fire. This is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1596)

Here Pope Pius VI condemns the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the fires of Hell. At the same time, he confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell) called the limbo of the children. They do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment is eternal separation from God.

The idea that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – since they are in a state of original sin – has been specifically anathematized.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “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…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

Apparently, you don't understand Catholic doctrine. The idea of "Limbo" was a way of reasoning the silence in Scripture of what happens to unbaptized infants. They are left to the grace and mercy of God.

There has never been a definitive doctrine on what happens to the souls unbaptized infants or the unborn. I'll make it easy for you:
If you can present an official doctrine from the Catechism about what happens to the souls of unbaptized babies - I will apologize.

UNTIL you can do that - your opinions are just that: OPINIONS.
And again - you truly don't understand what Pelagianism is if you think that this is a defense of it . . .

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: 1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, 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,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
"THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED"
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.

Do your HOMEWORK.

 

[BreadOfLife]

...just read post #133
Good heavens, what a complicated Religion you guys have!!
Where is "the simplicity in Christ"?

2 Cor 11:3-
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

Compared to the demands of the Law of the OT - it IS simple.

However, Jesus never said that being His follower would be "simple." In fact, He always talked about how difficult it would be (Matt. 16:24-26, Mark, 8:34, Luke 9:23, Matt., 10:22-24, Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24).

Paul and Peter said the same thing (Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2).

 

[truth333]

Apparently, you don't understand Catholic doctrine. The idea of "Limbo" was a way of reasoning the silence in Scripture of what happens to unbaptized infants. They are left to the grace and mercy of God.

There has never been a definitive doctrine on what happens to the souls unbaptized infants or the unborn. I'll make it easy for you:
If you can present an official doctrine from the Catechism about what happens to the souls of unbaptized babies - I will apologize.

UNTIL you can do that - your opinions are just that: OPINIONS.
And again - you truly don't understand what Pelagianism is if you think that this is a defense of it . . .

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: 1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, 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,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
"THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED"
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.

Do your HOMEWORK.

Lol! You completely and willfully ignored dogma in favor of the robber council of the second vatican council and its heretical catechism.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “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…” (Denz. 712)

You not only misunderstand Pelagianism but everything else. Your a prideful man.

Vatican