Father Isaac Mary Relyea

[BarbTherese]

Right, ​God might bind himself to the sacraments, but he doesn't have to. 

The problem with your idea about unbaptized babies is that it removes free will from the situation. The fact that we actually do make the choices we make is vitally important, even if God already knows all of the choices we make. You can't removed the importance of that act of will on our part, because it is through that act of will that we can send ourselves to Hell or choose to live a life in relationship with God. That may be why so many theologians of history have said that it doesn't make sense that unbaptized babies are in Hell, because while they're under the stain of original sin they still haven't committed any personal sin. That's why the idea of limbo, a not bad but not great place, was such a popular idea for so long. 

Otherwise, if you remove free will from that situation, you might as well remove it from all situations, and start entertaining ideas of double predestination like Calvinists. We believe that our free choice is what determines if we go to heaven or hell. Calvinists believe that not only does God know who's going to heaven and hell, but that the holy people who are going to heaven are set aside as part of the "elect," and you get to figure out if you're a member of the "elect" or not. The elect never lose their salvation. But if you become a Christian and then go on a serial killing spree, you don't lose salvation, you were never saved in the first place. It's an important distinction.  
 

​Thank you, BM.

I will have to give the final destination of unbaptised babies more thought re the free will factor you raised.

 

__________

Yippee!  I can still login and post despite being logged off overnight.   dUSt, you are a marvel in my eyes, but please, I love this forum to bits, no more radical changes, huh!

[Ark]

But even if something isn't officially enumerated in dogma, it doesn't mean that something isn't worthy of belief.  People believed all kinds of things without them being officially canonized into dogma until much later. 

The idea that God isn't bound by the sacraments is a logical conclusion drawn from God's omnipotence. God created the sacraments for us, and might choose to only operate within the sacraments, but God doesn't have to. We, however, must operate within the sacraments, because those are the only means by which we know for sure God saves us. 

​Peace be with you Basilisa Marie,

Yes, I agree with you and I personally accept the consensus of theologians that God can act outside of the sacraments, but my point was only to make folly of those who rashly dismiss limbo infantum because it's not dogma. It is however dogmatically defined that persons dying solely with original sin are deprived of the Beatific vision, and although unbaptized infants are not explicitly mentioned they do fit this category. Historically speaking, this has been the view of the Fathers and schoolmen, despite debate on the exact nature of there state there is pretty much agreement on that it involves deprivation of the beatific vision. If there are Fathers or theologians that have proposed heaven as a possibility, I would be eager to learn about them. 

 

[vyvy07]

I personally haven't listened to these priests speakers, but I really like listening to Fr. Mike Schmitz! He has such a wonderful way of speaking that truly inspires you and when you meet him in person, you can feel the Holy Spirit working in him.

[BarbTherese]

A very longgg and for me complex document to read apparently published in April 2007 (Pope Benedict XVI)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission. In order to prepare for this study, a Committee was formed comprised by Most Rev. Ignazio Sanna, Most Rev. Basil Kyu-Man Cho, Rev. Peter Damien Akpunonu, Rev. Adelbert Denaux, Rev. Gilles Emery, OP, Msgr. Ricardo Ferrara, Msgr. István Ivancsó, Msgr. Paul McPartlan, Rev. Dominic Veliath, SDB (President of the Committee), and Sr. Sarah Butler, MSTB. The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission. The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the . )

 (*in forma specificaHoly father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTSWHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
*

. b) The affirmation that “the punishment for original sin is the loss of the beatific vision”, formulated by Innocent III,36[65] pertains to the faith: original sin is of itself an impediment to the beatific vision. Grace is necessary in order to be purified of original sin and to be raised to communion with God so as to be able to enter into eternal life and enjoy the vision of God. Historically, the common doctrine applied this affirmation to the fate of unbaptised infants and concluded that these infants lack the beatific vision. But Pope Innocent’s teaching, in its content of faith, does not necessarily imply that infants who die without sacramental Baptism are deprived of grace and condemned to the loss of the beatific vision; it allows us to hope that God who wants all to be saved, provides some merciful remedy for their purification from original sin and their access to the beatific vision.

. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific VisionWe emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18, rather than grounds for sure knowledge.

 

[JB2]

What I love about Fr. Isaac is that he is always preaching what the Saints preached. If something he says bothers me, it's probably because I need to hear it.

Wanted to hear him speak at the Marian Conference but youtube has the talks on Our Lady he gave that day.

First post, glad to be here! Looks like a really good forum, very tradition-friendly and free of all the elitist and schismatic 'sede' trash.

 

[Andrea]

I think this priest is great but it is hard for me to believe that some things said were not going too far. This reminded me of the scene in Jesus of Nazareth when Jesus gets angry at the Pharisees and says, regarding the kingdom of God, "you do not go in yourselves - nor do you permit others to enter!" Jesus died so we could have a chance at Heaven not so we would discover it was impossible to get to Heaven...

Where is this idea coming from that once you confess a given sin three times and receive absolution and then commit the sin again all future absolutions are invalid and all future confessions and communions are sacrilegious? What about the 70 x 7 that Jesus told Peter about? God always outdoes us in mercy and He would not ask of us what He was not willing to supercede us in. I am not saying that firm purpose of amendment isn't required to be forgiven but where does this three strikes and you are out philosophy come from? God demands our best but also knows how weak we are and how sinful a world we live in, how habituated we are to sin, etc.

Also I don't understand the basis for the idea that it is a mortal sin for a wife and mother to work outside the home. I am a physician and my husband is mentally disabled and never finished college. I was a physician before we got married. We have five children and I have physical disabilities so it is easier for him to physically care for our children at home and I can make more money in a day or two than my husband could slaving away 9 to 5 every day for a whole month. What are we to think about such a statement in light of the crosses God has given each of us?

I don't understand how it is a mortal sin for a husband and wife to not sleep in the same bed or for two or more children to sleep in the same bed or room. We have all girls and live in a three bedroom house. I could understand if we had both boys and girls there might be impropriety issues, but I have been either pregnant or nursing a child or both for ten straight years now and God shows no signs of slowing the number of children he is giving us. I am due to have our next child later this year. My husband has sleep problems and wears a loud mask apparatus each night and our middle daughter has special needs that require someone be with her overnight, but she is not bothered by his mask. If I tried to sleep next to both my special needs daughter and the baby I was nursing one would be more likely to wake the other throughout the night and I would never get any sleep. I can't put a baby in a crib because of my physical disabilities.

I feel like generalized statements like the ones above can cause more harm than good because people feel that the idea of ever getting to Heaven is hopeless and there are no special considerations given to people who have unique circumstances. The canonization of the likely unbaptized good thief proves that God does make provisions for people with unique circumstances. I feel like I don't know who to trust anymore when it comes to knowing what is sinful and whether something is a mortal or venial sin......

 

[Ice_nine]

 

Where is this idea coming from that once you confess a given sin three times and receive absolution and then commit the sin again all future absolutions are invalid and all future confessions and communions are sacrilegious?

Also I don't understand the basis for the idea that it is a mortal sin for a wife and mother to work outside the home.

I don't understand how it is a mortal sin for a husband and wife to not sleep in the same bed or for two or more children to sleep in the same bed or room.

 

​did he really say these things? If so can a supporter of this priest please explain how these things are correct? Because if that's the case, especially for the first one, I am screeeeeeeeeeeeeewed.

[BarbTherese]

​did he really say these things? If so can a supporter of this priest please explain how these things are correct? Because if that's the case, especially for the first one, I am screeeeeeeeeeeeeewed.

​Someone is sure very screwed up indeed - and it sure as eggs aint you, IN

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think this priest is great but it is hard for me to believe that some things said were not going too far. This reminded me of the scene in Jesus of Nazareth when Jesus gets angry at the Pharisees and says, regarding the kingdom of God, "you do not go in yourselves - nor do you permit others to enter!" Jesus died so we could have a chance at Heaven not so we would discover it was impossible to get to Heaven...

Where is this idea coming from that once you confess a given sin three times and receive absolution and then commit the sin again all future absolutions are invalid and all future confessions and communions are sacrilegious? What about the 70 x 7 that Jesus told Peter about? God always outdoes us in mercy and He would not ask of us what He was not willing to supercede us in. I am not saying that firm purpose of amendment isn't required to be forgiven but where does this three strikes and you are out philosophy come from? God demands our best but also knows how weak we are and how sinful a world we live in, how habituated we are to sin, etc.

Also I don't understand the basis for the idea that it is a mortal sin for a wife and mother to work outside the home. I am a physician and my husband is mentally disabled and never finished college. I was a physician before we got married. We have five children and I have physical disabilities so it is easier for him to physically care for our children at home and I can make more money in a day or two than my husband could slaving away 9 to 5 every day for a whole month. What are we to think about such a statement in light of the crosses God has given each of us?

I don't understand how it is a mortal sin for a husband and wife to not sleep in the same bed or for two or more children to sleep in the same bed or room. We have all girls and live in a three bedroom house. I could understand if we had both boys and girls there might be impropriety issues, but I have been either pregnant or nursing a child or both for ten straight years now and God shows no signs of slowing the number of children he is giving us. I am due to have our next child later this year. My husband has sleep problems and wears a loud mask apparatus each night and our middle daughter has special needs that require someone be with her overnight, but she is not bothered by his mask. If I tried to sleep next to both my special needs daughter and the baby I was nursing one would be more likely to wake the other throughout the night and I would never get any sleep. I can't put a baby in a crib because of my physical disabilities.

I feel like generalized statements like the ones above can cause more harm than good because people feel that the idea of ever getting to Heaven is hopeless and there are no special considerations given to people who have unique circumstances. The canonization of the likely unbaptized good thief proves that God does make provisions for people with unique circumstances. I feel like I don't know who to trust anymore when it comes to knowing what is sinful and whether something is a mortal or venial sin......

 

Hi Andrea, maybe it would be helpful if you could provide specific quotes or audio links where you heard these topics being described...Because there might be more context that the priest was going into. For example the first case - we know God forgives if you're sorry. Could it have been something about unrepentance there? In the second case I've heard traditional priest say that in our society there are cases where a wife and mother has to work and this is not ideal, but it seems it was a sin if its all about feminism etc and not because you have to financially? I can try to look up that sermon. It wasn't so generalized though. The last part could relate to modesty but I don't know anything about when its a sin and how grave. Anyway context and sources would help a lot  

[Andrea]

I will try to find the quotes again and post them.....

[Andrea]

These statements were all from the sermon published on youtube 3-13-14 titled "4 last things - Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea"

"It is a mortal sin for a parent to let your child sleep in your bed or for two of your children to sleep in the same bed"....

I'm going to try to find the others later today.

[truthfinder]

Well that sounds like he's been reading too much of St. Jean Vianney...

[Catlick]

How can a priest read too much of one of the Church's greatest parish priests? 

[truthfinder]

Sometimes very good people read St. Jean Vianney very literally and without the context of why he said certain things (such as co-sleeping). You can be saint and still wrong, as well.  If children sleeping in the same bed together is sinful, we're all gone and literally everyone else since the beginning of beds. 

[Catlick]

Father Isaac's denounciation of co-sleeping has already been commented upon on other forums. A reasonable explanation (at least to me) is that back in the days of St. Jean Vianney most people slept in one room with the entire family. They had little privacy yet still wanted/had to do what nature called them to do *wink wink*. Crawling in each other's bed would only increase the risk of young children seeing things they're not yet supposed to see. Such early exposure often led to a tolerance of 'nature's way' that is incompatible with the Christian spirit of chastity.