the un-baptised

[qfnol31]

[quote]I never said that.... all I said was BoB is not defined ex Cathedra--that isn't the debate though, the debate is if a person can have such a thing (if it exists) by being aborted. Any right-minded theologian can tell you: absolutely not. Martyrdom is DYING FOR THE FAITH OF CHRIST, the CATHOLIC Faith. The aborted infant couldn't possibly do that, since he has not belief in any Religion explicitly, as he has not reached the age of use.[/quote]

Catholic Faith says dignity of life. Aborted babies say dignity of life. They are dying for this cause. Murdered people normally aren't murdered because someone doesn't think they're alive. Aborted babies, many people don't think they're alive. That's how that's different. That is a part of our Faith.

[quote]In any event, if you think abortions are sending these babies to Heaven, then why do so many people call it satanic? Wouldn't it be Divine? Why would satan want to send 4000 people to Heaven every day? That is simply absurd. It would not be so wrong if these babies were going to Heaven. In fact, it would be good to be able to ensure that they are going to Heaven.[/quote]

That's like saying the Crucifixion was Divine or Martyrdom is Divine.

[quote]The idea of a baptism of blood for an aborted infant fails theologically and logically.[/quote]

According to bad theology or logic.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 03:48 PM'] Read my post on the types of infallibilty. Next, tell me how this statement on Baptism of Blood isn't infallible:

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized.22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God.


It is taught by the OUEM infallibly. It is universal. It is definitive. This is faith.

IT IS INFALLIBLE. [/quote]
I'm sorry... OUEM? What is that?

Is that from the CCC? If so, it's not infallible. The CCC has been revised so many times, it's impossible to say it's infallible.

Moreover, take the quote: "1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized."

The Baptism with which HE HAD TO BE BAPTIZED??? Christ had to be baptized now? That would fail considerably if you are trying to say that martyrdom is a Baptism sufficient and equal to water. Also, if Christ was already baptized with water, then why did he get baptized in Blood again? It seems to me to follow the same usage of "Baptism of Blood" as the Fathers (meaning simply martyrdom).

"22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God."

It says water and blood are forms of Baptism, but it doesn't say they are both salvific in themselves. Baptism of Blood (read: martyrdom) is not salvific insofar as it is necessary to be baptized in water to be a martyr. Moreover, it likens the Eucharist to a "Sacrament of new life". Yes, Baptism is a rebirth, the only way to be forgiven of Original Sin. The Eucharist is a renewal of Christ's Redeptive Act on the Cross (which is the only way anyone could ever be born to Heaven), and martyrdom is a new birth into Heaven, as martyrs go immediately to Heaven, as their temporal suffering is made up for by their martyrdom (I assume that the Church grants them a plenary indulgence for such an act).

Anyway, we can debate this later--we are getting off topic. First, can we please debate why even if there is a BoB, an infant can't get it merely by being murdered?

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Catholic Faith says dignity of life.  Aborted babies say dignity of life.  They are dying for this cause.[/quote]

That's the whole point: the baby isn't SAYING anything. The baby isn't dying FOR anything. The baby is being murdered. He does not have the use of reason. He cannot die FOR a cause, nor can he SAY anything.

[qfnol31]

I said to read my post first because it describes the OUEM: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23087"]Doctrine vs. Discipline[/url]

[quote]Next comes Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Dogma:
The infallibly taught is often from the [b]O[/b]rdinary [b]U[/b]niversal [b]E[/b]piscopal [b]M[/b]agisterium. It must be Ordinary (usually has to do with Natural Law), Universal (not decided just on numbers), held definitively, and must be faith and morals. If all these are kept, then it is probably infallibly taught.
Infallibly defined comes from two sources: 1) Papal Magisterium, 2) Ecumenical Magisterium.[/quote]

The way this has been taught has changed, but the teaching itself has not. In that case, it fits the things above, and so, whether it's in the Catechism or not, it fits all the criteria.

What you're saying is it can't be infallible because the way it's taught has changed. What's the case is that it's not defined infallibly, but taught infallibly (big distinction), and the difference is only the definition.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 8 2004, 02:01 PM'] That's the whole point: the baby isn't SAYING anything. The baby isn't dying FOR anything. The baby is being murdered. He does not have the use of reason. He cannot die FOR a cause, nor can he SAY anything. [/quote]
He is saying something just by living. He may not have the full use of reason (or really none at all at this time), but neither does a child, and you can ask a child to die for God.

And isn't there the Holy Innocence we celebrate? I doubt those were Baptized by water. They had no use of reason. How come they're martyrs?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:58 PM'] Anyway, we can debate this later--we are getting off topic. First, can we please debate why even if there is a BoB, an infant can't get it merely by being murdered? [/quote]
An infant should be able to get it by just being murdered, just look at the Holy Innocence.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 04:05 PM'] He is saying something just by living. He may not have the full use of reason (or really none at all at this time), but neither does a child, and you can ask a child to die for God.

And isn't there the Holy Innocence we celebrate? I doubt those were Baptized by water. They had no use of reason. How come they're martyrs? [/quote]
As I said before, did you read it?, that they lived under the Old Law. Water Baptism couldn't have been necessary, since it hadn't been taught. You are usuing what is known as a logical fallacy. You are saying: it can't be against the law to pay taxes, since in 1776 you didn't have to. No, just because there weren't any American taxes then does not mean they are not levied now. Just because water Baptism was not in existence c. AD 1 does not mean that it was not necessary AD 33.

Moreover, the Holy Innocents were martyred in that they were killed in place of Christ. This is a special circumstance. You can't call the attempted murder of Christ the same as the murder-fo-convenience, etc. that happens today. Your analogy doesn't seem to stand, and on top of that, that all was in the Old Law, which would be different.

[quote]Next comes Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Dogma:
The infallibly taught is often from the Ordinary Universal Episcopal Magisterium. It must be Ordinary (usually has to do with Natural Law), Universal (not decided just on numbers), held definitively, and must be faith and morals. If all these are kept, then it is probably infallibly taught.
Infallibly defined comes from two sources: 1) Papal Magisterium, 2) Ecumenical Magisterium.[/quote]

PROBABLY infallible, not INFALLIBLE. Moreover, read the Catholic Encyclopedia about what Papal infallibility is. Not even everything in a Council, such as Trent, is infallible. Such as statement you found is not automatically infallible, according to what you wrote before. Even what you wrote before said it is PROBABLY infallible.

In any event, here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm[/url], especially consider V. What teaching is infallible?

[qfnol31]

[quote]PROBABLY infallible, not INFALLIBLE. Moreover, read the Catholic Encyclopedia about what Papal infallibility is. Not even everything in a Council, such as Trent, is infallible. Such as statement you found is not automatically infallible, according to what you wrote before. Even what you wrote before said it is PROBABLY infallible. [/quote]

Right now you're mixing Papal and Ecumenical Infallibility. Also, infallible means just that. It's a Truth taught, and while the means can be changed, the meaning cannot.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 04:21 PM']
Right now you're mixing Papal and Ecumenical Infallibility. Also, infallible means just that. It's a Truth taught, and while the means can be changed, the meaning cannot. [/quote]
The Pope presiding over a Council is still a Papal document, under an Ecumenical Council. It's the Pope AND MORE. The other statement is just the Pope. Either way, it is the Pope defining something. Read, as I said, the entry in Catholic Encyclopedia. It explains how the declaration on the Immaculate Conception was defined in one or two sentences, even though the document was very long. Not everything in a certain Pope's writing is infallible just because something defined is infallible in it somewhere.

Please address my comment I left before this. You seemed to pick out one thing I said and respond to that instead of responding to all.

[qfnol31]

Hmm, I'll try.

[quote]PROBABLY infallible, not INFALLIBLE.[/quote]

This I adressed saying there isn't really a distiction.

[quote]Moreover, read the Catholic Encyclopedia about what Papal infallibility is. Not even everything in a Council, such as Trent, is infallible.[/quote]

The council as a whole isn't, but what is stated based on faith and morals is. Ed: This is the Episcopal Magisterium, meaning that not just the Pope is behind it. When the Pope defines something infallible, that is an ex Cathedra statement.

[quote]Such as statement you found is not automatically infallible, according to what you wrote before.[/quote]

You're right, it isn't, but according to the criteria set forth by moral theology, this fits those criteria, and so it is infallibly.

[quote]Even what you wrote before said it is PROBABLY infallible.[/quote]

Probably because I have no authoritative voice and know that as a 19-year-old I don't know much in theology and don't want to act like I know very much. I don't want to fall into a trap (easy for me) that I understand theology well.

[quote]In any event, here is the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm[/url], especially consider V. What teaching is infallible?[/quote]

All teaching on faith or morals that is taught definitively by the Ordinary Universal Episcopal Magisterium is infallibly taught.


Did you read that article I wrote?

Edited November 8, 2004 by qfnol31

[CatholicCrusader]

OK--did you address what I said about the quote itself not actually teacing Baptism of Desire:

Moreover, take the quote: "1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized."

The Baptism with which HE HAD TO BE BAPTIZED??? Christ had to be baptized now? That would fail considerably if you are trying to say that martyrdom is a Baptism sufficient and equal to water. Also, if Christ was already baptized with water, then why did he get baptized in Blood again? It seems to me to follow the same usage of "Baptism of Blood" as the Fathers (meaning simply martyrdom).

"22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God."

It says water and blood are forms of Baptism, but it doesn't say they are both salvific in themselves. Baptism of Blood (read: martyrdom) is not salvific insofar as it is necessary to be baptized in water to be a martyr. Moreover, it likens the Eucharist to a "Sacrament of new life". Yes, Baptism is a rebirth, the only way to be forgiven of Original Sin. The Eucharist is a renewal of Christ's Redeptive Act on the Cross (which is the only way anyone could ever be born to Heaven), and martyrdom is a new birth into Heaven, as martyrs go immediately to Heaven, as their temporal suffering is made up for by their martyrdom (I assume that the Church grants them a plenary indulgence for such an act).

Anyway, we can debate this later--we are getting off topic. First, can we please debate why even if there is a BoB, an infant can't get it merely by being murdered?

[qfnol31]

I have two quotes for you, from Mark and Luke:

[quote] Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" [/quote]

[quote]11 There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished![/quote]


Poor Catechesis means poor training.

Ed. because I can't spell.

Edited November 8, 2004 by qfnol31

[thessalonian]

Granted, the old law would have been different. But what would have been different within the child itself? Nothing. It had no idea of it's Jewish hertiage and could not look forward to the messiah. It could not become a member of the kingdom in the old way, i.e. by circumcision. It contained the stain of original sin and somehow this stain had to be removed. What is different that would condemn one of these children over the other to hell? Granted, God can do what he wants but I am interested in your response. I still think that my logical fallacy is not as logically fallacious as you contend.

But I will give you another example that doesn't fit your fallacy arguement which I think is a fallacy. This one is out of Acts 10,11 so you can't argue as you have. Cornelius was said to be an "righteous and God fearing man". Of course Peter brought Cornelius the gospel which Cornelius was under obligation to accept or he would have been damned to hell for all eternity. But the question first off is, since Cornelius was neither Jew nor Christian (Catholic) was he damned to hell before Peter presented him with the Gospel? I know of no verse anywhere that says a righteous and God fearing person will go to hell. Second question, there may well have been thousands of righteous and God-fearing men since Christ who have not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. Are they damned to hell or do we hold hope that God holds those who knew to what they know and treats them as the unbelievers if they do not follow, "but to the man who did not know he will recieve but few lashes." Luke 12.

Blessings

Edited November 8, 2004 by thessalonian

[qfnol31]

Baptism=Baptism=Baptism.

[quote]22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God."

It says water and blood are forms of Baptism, but it doesn't say they are both salvific in themselves. Baptism of Blood (read: martyrdom) is not salvific insofar as it is necessary to be baptized in water to be a martyr. Moreover, it likens the Eucharist to a "Sacrament of new life". Yes, Baptism is a rebirth, the only way to be forgiven of Original Sin. The Eucharist is a renewal of Christ's Redeptive Act on the Cross (which is the only way anyone could ever be born to Heaven), and martyrdom is a new birth into Heaven, as martyrs go immediately to Heaven, as their temporal suffering is made up for by their martyrdom (I assume that the Church grants them a plenary indulgence for such an act).[/quote]

And who says that the Baptisms are different? The word is capitalized. They are both salvific.

Edited November 8, 2004 by qfnol31

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Nov 8 2004, 04:56 PM'] Granted, the old law would have been different. But what would have been different within the child itself? Nothing. It had no idea of it's Jewish hertiage and could not look forward to the messiah. It could not become a member of the kingdom in the old way, i.e. by circumcision. It contained the stain of original sin and somehow this stain had to be removed. What is different that would condemn one of these children over the other to hell? Granted, God can do what he wants but I am interested in your response. I still think that my logical fallacy is not as logically fallacious as you contend.

But I will give you another example that doesn't fit your fallacy arguement which I think is a fallacy. This one is out of Acts 10,11 so you can't argue as you have. Cornelius was said to be an "righteous and God fearing man". Of course Peter brought Cornelius the gospel which Cornelius was under obligation to accept or he would have been damned to hell for all eternity. But the question first off is, since Cornelius was neither Jew nor Christian (Catholic) was he damned to hell before Peter presented him with the Gospel? I know of no verse anywhere that says a righteous and God fearing person will go to hell. Second question, there may well have been thousands of righteous and God-fearing men since Christ who have not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. Are they damned to hell or do we hold hope that God holds those who knew to what they know and treats them as the unbelievers if they do not follow, "but to the man who did not know he will recieve but few lashes." Luke 12.

Blessings [/quote]
[quote]Granted, the old law would have been different.  But what would have been different within the child itself?  Nothing.  It had no idea of it's Jewish hertiage and could not look forward to the messiah.  It could not become a member of the kingdom in the old way, i.e. by circumcision.  It contained the stain of original sin and somehow this stain had to be removed.  What is different that would condemn  one of these children over the other to hell?  Granted, God can do what he wants but I am interested in your response.  I still think that my logical fallacy is not as logically fallacious as you contend.[/quote]

1) Circumcision was not binding absolutely. That is, a person could enter the Limbo of the Fathers outside of the practice of the Old Law, as far as I understand. I may be incorrect on this, though. If so, please provide me with evidence to the contrary.

2) The Holy Innocents were circumcized, since the Jewish custom was to do so 8 days after birth (hence January 1 is the Solemnity fo the Circumcision of the Lord, which is the Octave of Christmas).

[quote]But I will give you another example that doesn't fit your fallacy arguement which I think is a fallacy.  This one is out of Acts 10,11 so you can't argue as you have.  Cornelius was said to be an "righteous and God fearing man".    Of course Peter brought Cornelius the gospel which Cornelius was under obligation to accept or he would have been damned to hell for all eternity.  But the question first off is, since Cornelius was neither Jew nor Christian (Catholic) was he damned to hell before Peter presented him with the Gospel?  I know of no verse anywhere that says a righteous and God fearing person will go to hell.  Second question, there may well have been thousands of righteous and God-fearing men since Christ who have not had the opportunity to hear the Gospel.  Are they damned to hell or do we hold hope that God holds those who knew to what they know and treats them as the unbelievers if they do not follow, "but to the man who did not know he will recieve but few lashes."  Luke 12.[/quote]

Please see what I posted on here from the Holy See regarding invincible ignorance. It is in the Apologetics section: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23300"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=23300[/url]