the un-baptised

[thessalonian]

Your misleading people. The edits to my knowledge have not included dogmatic errors. The Catechism is very much based on scripture and dogmatic statements from Ecumenical councils so, though it is not explicitly infallible that does not mean that we should go looking for errors in it. If it isn't solid then not much is. In my study of the papacy I have deteremined that people use infallibility far too often as an out for not believing something. That a statement is not infallibly declared by a Pope (of which there have only been about 20 such declarations) or a council, somehow implies that it is fallible to them. It is a logical fallacy. That something is not declared infallibly true, does not make it false.

Blessings

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 11 2004, 04:51 PM'] I think that you are misreading what the Catechism is trying to say... but if not, the Catechism is not an infallible or binding document (that is why it has been corrected in over 100 different places)... maybe this area will be next to go to be edited. [/quote]
Wrong.
Read the Intro to the Catechism, it is an exercise of the teaching Magisterium of the Church " a sure norm of the faith".

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 11 2004, 01:51 PM'] I think that you are misreading what the Catechism is trying to say... but if not, the Catechism is not an infallible or binding document (that is why it has been corrected in over 100 different places)... maybe this area will be next to go to be edited. [/quote]
Actually, at very least, you owe ascent of mind and will.

[Mary's Knight, La]

I was talking with a transitional deacon on salvation for aborted babies, he said he couldn't think of magisterial teaching on the issue but that it seems it fall under baptism by desire since that is supposed to apply to those who would have faith in Christ, were they given the opportunity. Thus we must pray for their souls to have the grace such that they would accept Christ given the choice, but pray first that they don't get aborted.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Jeff, I assume you want me to address this?

First, "We also know how Baptism of Blood or Desire are salvific for someone who has attained the age of reason." We don't know that... and I don't believe that, but I will grant it to you for the purpose of debate--I am not saying that it is true merely that even if it is, an infant cannot have a Baptism of desire/blood.

"What we do not know is how Baptism of Blood or Desire work with regards to those who have yet to attain the age of reason. As such, we must admit simply that we do not know."

On the contrary, if the Church teaches that: one MUST be baptized with water to be saved, then you must hold that. IF the Church made exceptions, then those exceptions and THOSE ALONE can be considered true. So, for example, if the Church (again only for the sake of argument) says that Baptism of Blood/Desire suffices for one who has reached the age of reason, then we say: OK, but only for those who have reached the age of reason. You seem to overlook the fact that it has been infallibly declared literally dozens upon dozens of times that Baptism is necessary for salvation. WE KNOW THAT. We CAN say we know that. We MUST NOT say "we do not know". So, if a person falls into a category that is not an "exception", then we say with as much certainty as Christ did when He declared Himself infallibly that man must be baptized in St. John chapter III: "That person will surely never reach Heaven." If the Church makes an exception later, then we can say: the Church has excused this person. Until then (assuming it is possible to even have exceptions), we must say: all those who are not baptized cannot be saved except where the Church has excused (again, as if the Church actually has). So, since the Church has not excused the unbaptized before the age of reason, we MUST say: they "cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Christ).

"Thus we pray for the souls of the unborn and the victims of abortion ceaselessly."

To do so would be illogical; it would be similar to praying for Judas... at least he lived when Baptism was not a necessity, and it is much more possible, even, for him to have been saved, as he could have had a perfect act of contrition, and he was not impeded by the necessity for a Sacrament that he had not ability to receive. The only reason Judas may become more illogical would be the words of Christ: "It would be better had he never been born".[/quote]

A couple points on the above. First, the main point of your argument does not stand up to logical scrutiny when combined with other points that you have brought up, allow me to illustrate:

Your main claim in the above is that unless a thing is explicitly taught, then it must be rejected. You maintain in the above that, under the assumption that baptism of blood/desire [i]is[/i] taught by the Church, it must be accepted, but anything beyond what is explicitly stated by the Church must be rejected. In the case in which it is not taught by the Church, you maintain that believe in baptism of blood/desire as a whole must be rejected.

Now, for the [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i] on your argument, by incorporating other points you have made:

You have argued many times, both in this thread and out of it, that only those things that are taught infallibly, and nothing else, can be trusted. (Just as a reference, please look to your response to the teaching of the Catechism, in which you made a claim-to-illegitimacy by pointing out its lack of infallibility). So with this claim you have qualified your definition of "taught by the Church" to mean strictly "Taught infallibly by the Church."

Remember that the main claim of your above argument is that "Unless a thing is explicitly taught by the Church, it must be rejected." Now lets do a simple substitution. In conjuction with your other point, the only possibility is that you are arguing:

"Unless a thing is infallibly taught by the Church, it must be rejected."

You cannot possibly mean this, because it yields a contradiction (I would hope). By definition, all non-dogma doctrines of the Church are not infallible, and so, under your above argument, not only should be thrown out, but [i]must be[/i].

Thus you have three choices as a result of the logical analysis of your argument.

1.) You can retract your claim that only those things infallibly taught are to have faith placed in them

2.) You can retract your claim that "Unless a thing is taught by the Church, it must be rejected"

3.) You can retract neither claim, and commit logical suicide

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff