Limbo

Originally posted by no1marauder
Except no exceptional cases have been described. That is the point. Traditionally the only debate has been whether unbaptized infants go to Hell and A) Suffer; or B) Not suffer or go to Limbo. The Church doctrine still does not allow one to say that one can be saved without Baptism; that is an official doctrine. The Council of Trent declared it is heresy to believe otherwise. It allows you to hope otherwise. See the difference?

Again, you misrepresent the Church's position. I'm forced to quote again these exceptions:

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

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," 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.

As for the Council of Trent, this is what is written in its declarations:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

The point here is clearly to deny that Baptism is optional, therefore the individuals who are not baptized but did not have that option fall on a different category for which the RCC still has no official position apart from a claim of ignorance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Except no exceptional cases have been described. That is the point. Traditionally the only debate has been whether unbaptized infants go to Hell and A) Suffer; or B) Not suffer or go to Limbo. The Church doctrine still does not allow one to say that one can be saved without Baptism; that is an official doctrine. The Council of Trent declared it is heresy to believe otherwise. It allows you to hope otherwise. See the difference?

Church doctrine clearly allows salvation without Baptism (not just baptism of blood and desire, but also all the pre-Christian Jewish Prophets and leaders) where Baptism refers to the sacrament. If 'baptism' is simply used to refer to 'regeneration' (i.e. remission of original sin), then that is how it makes sense to speak of 'baptism' of desire, of blood etc. But, in that case, there is no reason to think that un-Baptised (in the sacramental sense) children cannot be saved; i.e. un-Baptised does not equal non-regenerated. Given that the Trent Fathers knew about catechumens and martyrs (not to mention the Holy Innocents), it's clear they did not intend the narrow formal sense you're applying to it.

EDIT: That traditional theologians have never considered possible alternative means of the regeneration of unbaptised children (and fetuses) does not mean we can't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
When you actually start addressing some points, I'll respond. You continue to refuse to. Quoting a line of the Catechism over and over and over again because you apparently can't think of anything cogent to say isn't "debating'.

Again, whenever you misrepresent the RCC's position, I'm forced to requote the Vatican to prove you wrong.

Despite that it's all there in black and white, you still deny it. I'll keep quoting it until you acknowledge that the Vatican's Catechism is representative of the current official RCC's position.

Originally posted by Palynka
Again, whenever you misrepresent the RCC's position, I'm forced to requote the Vatican to prove you wrong.

Despite that it's all there in black and white, you still deny it. I'll keep quoting it until you acknowledge that the Vatican's Catechism is representative of the current official RCC's position.

LMAO! Did you even read what you quoted?

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! Did you even read what you quoted?

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

Another translation (e.g. see Hanover site) is "free" for "optional" above. I'll see if I can find the Latin text to see what word is used.

But the way the canon is phrased indicates that it has to deal with refusal of Baptism (i.e. when one has the option, as Pal points out) than an absolute equation of regeneration with sacramental Baptism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Church doctrine clearly allows salvation without Baptism (not just baptism of blood and desire, but also all the pre-Christian Jewish Prophets and leaders) where Baptism refers to the sacrament. If 'baptism' is simply used to refer to 'regeneration' (i.e. remission of original sin), then that is how it makes sense to speak of 'baptism' of desire, of b ...[text shortened]... means of the regeneration of unbaptised children (and fetuses) does not mean we can't.

Goddammit, LH; talk about a "strawman"! Where did I say Baptism in the sacramental or the "formal" sense? You make this up as you go along.

At the certain "risk" of having it labelled a "strawman", here is my understanding of the doctrine of original sin and its relation to Baptism:

Original Sin is the absence of sanctifying Grace which all men "inherit" into their soul due to the sin of Adam. The Church teaches that the only way to "remit" original sin and thus receive sanctifying grace is through Baptism. Thus, there are no "exceptions" as Palynka keeps saying UNLESS the doctrine of original sin is modified (or perhaps one could say that the soul isn't formed at conception but I thought that was Church doctrine as well).

Your claim seems to be NOW that perhaps there is some type of Baptism that the Church knows nothing about but nonetheless may exist. If so, couldn't alternative forms of Baptism exist for everybody? If so, why is infant baptism still stressed?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Another translation (e.g. see Hanover site) is "free" for "optional" above. I'll see if I can find the Latin text to see what word is used.

But the way the canon is phrased indicates that it has to deal with refusal of Baptism (i.e. when one has the option, as Pal points out) than an absolute equation of regeneration with sacramental Baptism.

It doesn't say that, does it? It specifically defines the teaching that "Baptism is optional[free]" as a teaching that it is "not necessary for Salvation". But I don't have my SDR, so even though the Council went out of its way to define a term, it may mean something else in LucifershammerWorld.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Goddammit, LH; talk about a "strawman"! Where did I say Baptism in the sacramental or the "formal" sense? You make this up as you go along.

At the certain "risk" of having it labelled a "strawman", here is my understanding of the doctrine of original sin and its relation to Baptism:

Original Sin is the absence of sanctifying Grace w ...[text shortened]... rms of Baptism exist for everybody? If so, why is infant baptism still stressed?

The problem is that it's not clear what you're referring to with "Baptism" in the following statement:

The Church teaches that the only way to "remit" original sin and thus receive sanctifying grace is through Baptism.

If you're not referring specifically to sacramental baptism (i.e. the one with "I baptise you X in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" with water poured over the person's head/person immersed in water; which I'll just call 'Baptism' with an uppercase 'B'😉, but more generally of regeneration (IIRC, a term Trent uses) which is normatively achieved in Baptism, but can also be achieved through martyrdom, perfect act of contrition/hope/charity etc. (baptism of desire) -- then you're right; there are no exceptions. However, in hoping for the salvation of unbaptised children, the Church is alluding to the possibility of such a 'baptism' (or regeneration) existing. It doesn't say it's impossible, but it doesn't know it exists either -- which is why it errs on the side of caution and emphasises infant baptism.

If, however, you are referring specifically to [sacramental] Baptism in the statement above, then the claim is false because the Trent Fathers obviously did not intend that (being aware of the other 'baptisms'/modes of regeneration and not repudiating them). Examining the canons closely (and it becomes clearer when one views the historical situation), it's clear the teaching is specified as a warning to those who devalue the sacramental nature and grace of Baptism; not as an over-riding rule that affects even those invincibly ignorant of its existence or blamelessly unable to participate in it. That is where it becomes a strawman.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It doesn't say that, does it? It specifically defines the teaching that "Baptism is optional[free]" as a teaching that it is "not necessary for Salvation". But I don't have my SDR, so even though the Council went out of its way to define a term, it may mean something else in LucifershammerWorld.

You don't need an SDR, just enough common-sense to realise that what a person means or intends is not understood merely from the spoken/written words (and don't give me any legal clap-trap here) but also from the context in which the words are spoken/written.

EDIT: Besides, you need to proofread your texts better. Your first sentence makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! Did you even read what you quoted?

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

Exactly. Did you read what I wrote?

It was never an option for unborn children to not be baptized.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The problem is that it's not clear what you're referring to with "Baptism" in the following statement:

[b]The Church teaches that the only way to "remit" original sin and thus receive sanctifying grace is through Baptism.

If you're not referring specifically to sacramental baptism (i.e. the one with "I baptise you X in the name of the Fath ...[text shortened]... lessly unable to participate in it. That is where it becomes a strawman.[/b]

If it is unclear to you, then it can only because you haven't paid any attention to the thread. I'be been using the term "Baptism" as the RCC uses it and that would include the types of "constructive" Baptism alluded to. The Church specifically discusses Baptism of blood and desire and gives the general conditions where they are applicable or possible. It excludes these from infants or fetuses.

So the Church says you can "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants, but you better baptize them or they might be damned because of Original Sin? And you find this a coherent theology?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You don't need an SDR, just enough common-sense to realise that what a person means or intends is not understood merely from the spoken/written words (and don't give me any legal clap-trap here) but also from the context in which the words are spoken/written.

EDIT: Besides, you need to proofread your texts better. Your first sentence makes no sense at all.

I'm not interested in your nitpicking; my first sentence was good enough so it's meaning was clear. That's sufficient.

You know that you're full of crap and no one at the Council of Trent would have believed that unbaptized infants could gain salvation. The history is absolutely clear that they would have believed that such infants would wind up A) In Limbo; or B) In Hell, but probably without punishment. Do you deny this?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So the Church says you can "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants, but you better baptize them or they might be damned because of Original Sin? And you find this a coherent theology?

It doesn't say they will be "damned" because of original sin (and that's another strawman!) The Church says she simply doesn't know what happens to them.

But, yes, it is coherent (i.e. no logical contradictions).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It doesn't say they will be "damned" because of original sin (and that's another strawman!) The Church says she simply doesn't know what happens to them.

But, yes, it is coherent (i.e. no logical contradictions).

What does the word "might" mean? Another improper use of the term strawman.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not interested in your nitpicking; my first sentence was good enough so it's meaning was clear. That's sufficient.

You know that you're full of crap and no one at the Council of Trent would have believed that unbaptized infants could gain salvation. The history is absolutely clear that they would have believed A) In Limbo; B) That they would go to Hell, but probably without punishment for their sins. Do you deny this?

LOL! The meaning of the first sentence was clear to me only because I've been reading your rubbish for so long (a bit like players "knowing" each other in a long match).

The refutation for " no one at the Council of Trent would have believed that unbaptized infants could gain salvation" can be instantly given in the case of the Holy Innocents. The fact that these unbaptised infants have long been considered to be saved despite the fact that they had the opportunity to partake neither of baptism of desire nor martyrdom for the faith (which, as you point out, the Church has excluded for infants) shows that the Trent Fathers did, at least in some cases, consider the possibility of unbaptised infants being saved. The prevalance of the Thomistic (limbo) and Augustinian ("soft" hell) models meant that they probably didn't see a third way, but if they intended to rule it out they would've defined limbo/hell as doctrine.