STILLBORN BABIES?!

[Azriel]

don't forget that he also called you a man.

:

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 08:56 PM']oh and CMotherofpirl: you spelled "More" as in "St. Thomas More" wrong in your signature. It has one "O" not two "O"s
[right][snapback]875972[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[url="http://www.mnsu.edu/supersite/directories/rso/details.php?name=St.+Thomas+Moore+Newman+Center"]http://www.mnsu.edu/supersite/directories/...e+Newman+Center[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Feb 4 2006, 08:59 PM']don't forget that he also called you a man.

:
[right][snapback]875976[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LOL I noticed he can't read SNs either.
c-mother-of-pirl
Mother of 4 teenagers

but we digress.
STM can you answer my questions?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 4 2006, 09:02 PM']LOL I noticed he can't read SNs either.
c-mother-of-pirl
Mother of 4 teenagers

but we digress.
STM can you answer my questions?
[right][snapback]875980[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Go easy on him. he's but 12 years old.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 06:43 PM']The Church has supported Limbo in the past
[/quote]That is incorrect. Theologians have supported it in the past, but you cannot say the Church as a whole. We have shown you that it was never taught as doctrine. Once again, I am not denying it, but trying to show you that there is a legitimate diversity here.

Also you never responded to what I had to say about giving ecclesiastical faith and religious assent. I would really be interested in what you have to say about you not caring about the pope's ordinary teachings since as Catholics we are called to religious assent. Please do tell.

Furthermore, you need to re-read the Baptism of Desire explination. It states that those who through no fault of their own strived to live a virtous life and earnestly seek the truth [i]may have implicitly desired Baptism [/i]had they been aware of it. Which means that person on the island in the middle of no-where might have desired Baptism if he had known about it. If you can prove otherwise please show me.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 06:43 PM']The Church has supported Limbo in the past

[right][snapback]875919[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The Church Herself has never supported Limbo, some of her members have but never officially in that it had to be believe just a theory.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]http://www.mnsu.edu/supersite/directories/...e+Newman+Center [/quote]

who ever wrote that was an idiot. Here are some much better links about St. Thomas More:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14689c.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.st-thomasmore.org/"]http://www.st-thomasmore.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.st-thomasmore.derbyshire.sch.uk/"]http://www.st-thomasmore.derbyshire.sch.uk/[/url]

[url="http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm"]http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm[/url]


here's a link about "Thomas Moore"

[url="http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/Moore.html"]http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/Moore.html[/url]


I HATE it whenever someone spells St. Thomas More's surename "Moore". It drives me nuts! You do NOT spell it "Moore"! OK??



[quote]So its a sin not to be baptised if you have never heard of it?
Can you commit a sin if you have never heard of a venial sin?
Does a venial sin commit you to hell?[/quote]

it is a sin not to be baptized. The muhammadeans and talmudists who reject baptism commit a mortal sin.
you can commit a sin if you have never heard of a venial sin. It's called being bad.
A venial sin does not commit you to hell but the unbaptized cannot enter heaven.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 4 2006, 11:00 PM']it is a sin not to be baptized. The muhammadeans and talmudists who reject baptism commit a mortal sin.
[/quote]That is incorrect. In order for something to be sinful there has to be three conditions met. You might recongize these as the lesser versions of the three conditions for mortal sin.

1)The matter must be some disorder of the good (meaning an "evil" matter)
2) There must be some advertance of the intellect (meaning the person must know in some degree that it is wrong)
3) There must be some assent of the will (meaning the person must partially will it).

Those are the three for personal sin. Original sin is a different category. Thomas that is basic moral theology and was the same pre-Vat so dont throw that out . So basically, simply saying that not being Baptised is a sin is wrong because not everyone has advertence of the intellect or assent of the will. Someone who has never even heard of Baptism cannot sin against Baptism because there is no advertance. There is a huge difference between not being Baptised because of ignorace (which btw diminishes culpability, again moral theology) and rejecting or denying something which implies advertence and assent.

Edit: I edited a part in my post because I saw where I could have been misunderstood. It originally read "one who has not been Baptized cannot sin." That is obviously wrong if one understood me as saying sin at all.

What I meant was one cannot sin against not being Baptized if one has never heard of Baptism. I apologize if there was any confusion but if no someone has ever heard of Baptism he cannot commit the sin of rejecting or delaying it for there is no advertance or assent. Once again sorry for any confusion.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Cam42]

Gee whiz......this is a convoluted thread.

With respect to everyone who has posted, and it has been some good stuff, I'll try to summarize and perhaps bring a fresh perspective to the conversation.

[quote name='Krush2k2 Feb 3 2006' date=' 10:48 PM']Any catholic teaching on where stillborn babies go? My step sister just had triplets and they all died stillborn, so this question has been on my mind all day. Thank ya pham[/quote]

Here it is.

[quote name='CCC #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.[/quote]

That is the current and theologically sound teaching of the Church.

[quote name='StThomasMore Feb 3 2006' date=' 11:16 PM']They go to the Limbo of the Infants, which is on the edge of Hell. In the Limbo of the Infants, there in no punishment, its inhabitants do not have beatic vision, and its inhabitants will be eternally happy. They cannot enter heaven because they were never baptized.[/quote]

StThomasMore, will you please provide explicit teaching on the "doctrine of limbo?" I would like to see where this doctrine is supported outside of the realm of theological speculation. I will not accept anything of the sort that contains, "I don't need to," "it is not incumbent on me," etc....you put this out there, I expect you to support your position. It is time to put up or shut up.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 12:04 AM']Limbo is a perfectly good belief and has been greatly supported over the years by MANY theologians and Popes. It is a much better alternative to having the unbaptized souls of infants burning in Hell! Alot of liberal Catholics claim unbaptized infants' souls go to Heaven, which has NEVER been approved of or supported by the Church.

This reminds me of something else:

It is perfectly good to believe in the Fatima apparations which have been supported by many bishops and Popes. Alot of liberal Catholics, though, dont believe in them, but believe in the heretical Medjegoure apparations which have been CONDEMNED by the Church.[/quote]

Stay on topic, you are trying to dilute the conversation. Who are the many theologians and Popes. I would like citations and documentation, from you. Thanks. We are not discussing Medjugorje. Want to discuss that, I am sure that another thread would be appropriate.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 12:19 AM']Baptism of Desire, though, is only guariteed to those who are Catechumins, though some speculate it may also be recieved by those whose parents plan to baptize them, but die before that is able to happen.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #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.[/quote]

This constitutes Baptism of Desire. Please don't come to me with the whole, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not authoritative" line. That is a deflection. That is not accurate. The CCC is a fruit directly derived from Tradition. It is given to us as a sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith. It must be adhered to and accepted universally. It is not meant to replace other catechisms, though.....so please don't give me that tired line.....it is flat out wrong. You cannot defend that position adequately, so please refrain from platitudes of that manner. Thank you.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 12:27 AM'] I would like to see the offocial Church teaching on Baptism of Desire.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #1259-1261']1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

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.[/quote]
[i]Gaudium et Spes 22 § 5;
cf. Lumen Gentium 16; AG 7.
Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.[/i]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm"]Documents of Vatican Council II[/url]

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 12:45 AM ']It is just like the Vatican II Documents: non-dogmatic in the first place, containting error, and ambiguous[/quote]

Did you come up with that all on your own? That was not very original.....how about we try this again....go to the above link and read the first line of the first hyper-link. I believe it says, "DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION." Nope, nothing dogmatic there.....oh wait.....try again.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 01:06 AM']You think I care what the Pope says if it is not infallable or darn close to infallable?[/quote]

I would sincerely hope so. And if you don't, you have just undermined your whole position here. PRECISELY because "Limbo" is not infallible, nor is it "darn close." So, your statement listed above is moot, if this is now your position. Your inconsistency and blatant misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, infallible or otherwise is becoming apparent.

(cont.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 01:24 AM']No, no, no! I said that wrong! I care about everything the popes from AD 33- AD 1965 said. It's anything the Pope said that wasnt infallable AFTER 1965 that I dont care about[/quote]

Where does it say in Catholic teaching that we get to pick and choose what statements we accept and don't accept from the Pope, with all things being considered equal? I would like documentation on that. And also to re-use that line of "examination of conscience," it doesn't fly, because your conscience can be and probably is flawed. While it is ordered to the good, sin pollutes it and solid, orthodox spiritual direction coupled with confession, from a licit priest is what is needed to properly form one's conscience. So, why don't you care? What is unacceptable, exactly from after 1965?

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 01:24 AM']ugh! alot of the more liberal Novus Ordo parishes' Altars are tables. And by the way, I have to go to the NO half of the time, so I know.[/quote]

No bearing......start another thread.....don't convolute this one....it is off topic and a red herring.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 01:30 AM']Have you all heard of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (and no I'm not talking about the user who posts here)? [/quote]

Actually, I have.....here is the current teaching on this issue.
[quote name='CCC #846']How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[/quote]
[i]Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169;
De unit.:PL 4,509-536.
LG 14;
cf. Mk 16:16;
Jn 3:5.[/i]

Pretty clear and supported by traditional documentation.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 01:34 AM']non-Catholic Christians deny teachings of the Church and therefore are heretics and commit a mortal sin and cannot be saved.[/quote]

Another canned response? And inaccurate to boot. If this were the case, how do we win converts? Here is what the Church currently teaches;

[quote name='CCC #848']"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."[/quote]
[i]AG 7;
cf. Heb 11:6;
1 Cor 9:16[/i]

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 01:48 AM']The CCC is partially not authoritive. It was NOT NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE! look at all the Catechisms we already had! for the beginner: The Baltimore Catechism. For More Intermediate: The Catechism of St Pius X. And for the more well-read: The Catechism of the Council of Trent. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is amazing! it is probably the best Catechism you can buy! It is 25 times better that the CCC and it is about the same thickness! You should all really get a refund for your CCC and get instead the CCT![/quote]

Try again. And the various catechisms are completely in harmony. I suggest that you read [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm"]Fidei Depositum[/url], specifically paragraph 3. You are incorrect again.

(cont.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 01:55 AM']I, sir, am not denying the Popes! I firmly believe that Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are legitimate Popes. I just dont always like what they say, and if it is not infallable then I, under the pain of sin, dont have to listen.[/quote]

Wanna try again? That is erroneous.

[quote name='CCC #892']Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.[/quote]
[i]LG 25[/i]

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 02:02 AM']ha! they are by no means martyrs! I hate abortion just as much as you! I find it evil and disgusting and if it werent against the rules of this board to use profanity I would go on to cuss about it! Here are some examples of true martyrs: St Lucy, St Agnes, St Thomas More, St John Fisher, Louis XVI King of France, Marie Antoinette Queen of France! come on, really! Those people that I named died for Christ! those babies didnt! The aborted are dying because their parents believe that sex is more important that life![/quote]

We finally agree on something, however, this doesn't preclude their acceptance by God and their ability as His creation to receive His mercy. To deny that possibility is to deny His omnipotence.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 02:27 AM']YOU ARE SUCH A HERETIC! GOD HELP YOU![/quote]

You asked not to be called a heretic, please offer the same courtesy to the members here and apologize.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 02:35 AM']Am I now a heretic or something? Did I excommunicate myself? When I go to confession tommrow will it be invalid if I dont tell the priest I was a heretic? GOSH! THIS IS CRAZY! I DENY NO DOGMA! I DO NOT EXCOMMUNICATE MYSELF! AND I DONT NEED TO TELL MY CONFESSOR THAT I COMMITTED HERESY![/quote]

I don't know if you have excommunicated yourself or not. Have you done something to warrant latae sententiae excommunication? And if you are so fixiated on heresy, perhas as a matter of "examen" you need to discuss it with your confessor. Will it invalidate your confession? Probably not, but if you are going to confession to an SSPX priest, it is illicit, because he has no faculty to hear confession from the local ordinary. If not, then you are probably good. I don't know what is in your heart.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 02:48 AM']I denied no Catholic Dogma and therefore are innocent of the crime of heresy.[/quote]

For the record, heresy includes more than just dogma. Here is the current teaching.

[quote name='CCC #2089']..."Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same...[/quote]

There is nothing about strictly being dogmatic in that....if you deny an infallible doctrine, which is not dogma, you may be a heretic. If you even have an obstinate doubt concerning doctrines or dogmas, you may be a heretic. I am not saying that you are, however.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 05:58 PM']There is NO OFFOCIAL TEACHING THAT SAYS LIMBO DOES NOT EXIST! ABORTED BABIES RECIEVE NO BAPTISM OF BLOOD! [/quote]

Will you please point to the [u]OFFICIAL[/u] teaching where "limbo" is brought out of the realm of theological speculation. Again, this is the crux of the whole argument.

(cont.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 08:43 PM ']The Church has supported Limbo in the past[/quote]

Official documentation which says that we must assent to this as defined teaching. You are stating that the Church has supported this, where is it? You have offered no documentation for support, as of yet.

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 08:52 PM']They didnt just "decide" to believe in limbo! The Church supported Limbo! If you say limbo dosent exist, then you are saying that all those who die, deprived of any of the three types of baptism, burn in Hell. [/quote]

Again, you are incorrect. Previous citations from the CCC support this notion of incorrectness.

[quote name='CCC #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.[/quote]
[i]GS 22 § 5;
cf. LG 16;
AG 7[/i]

[quote name='StThomasMore Yesterday' date=' 09:04 PM ']Well, I believe that all who are not baptized by water, blood, or desire cannot go to heaven. I believe those who committed no personal sin go to limbo. I believe that those who are not baptized by water, blood, or desire and committed personal sin burn in Hell. I could say that all those who were not baptized and committed no personal sin burned in hell, but I do not think God would allow that.[/quote]

And who are you to decide what is Catholic and what is not? Your conscience is only properly formed when it is in line with Catholic teaching. I have shown clearly, that it is not. Thi is not to say that you are in any way heretical, but rather that you have a lot of learning to do. Your views are incomplete and they are incorrect. You need to be catechized, properly. To limit yourself to the teachings of the Church until a certain date or year (ie. 1965), then stop is to separate yourself, to a lesser degree (or perhaps greater) from the immemorial teaching of the Church. That is the first step to schism. Please don't go down that road.

(cont.)

[Cam42]

Considering that you are twelve years old, I can understand your inability to grasp Theology, however, if you are going to get into the game, you need to discuss things from a theological point of view.

You speak as though you are not twelve and I will not/have not treated you as such. I will not simply cowtow to your age. You are incorrect in your views. You have a lot of learning to do and you have a lot of understanding to come to. I don't doubt that you are on a spiritual journey, however, if you continue on the path that you are on, you will become more close minded and you will continue to learn things which are not consistent with the Church.

You can't simply dismiss things because you don't like them. That is heresy. I am not saying that you are committing heresy, but rather that action is what heresy is. I posted the definition of heresy above and if one is obstinately doubtful, then he is heretical......

StThomasMore, I respect your vision, however, I don't respect your incorrect views. Learn what you will and learn what you must. The Church is more than 33AD to 1965AD. It is immemorial. It is from all time. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. To deny those things that have occurred since 1965, is to deny Christ. For where Peter is, there is the Church.

Good luck and God Bless.

[Paphnutius]

Thanks Cam for the recap of all covered here. Hopefully all of this will help Thomas and perhaps serve someone else who is reading along with us.

Thomas if you would like to start different threads on Baptism of Desire, religious assent, are anything else please feel free but we should try to stay on topic henceforth.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 5 2006, 08:43 AM']Thanks Cam for the recap of all covered here. Hopefully all of this will help Thomas and perhaps serve someone else who is reading along with us.

Thomas if you would like to start different threads on Baptism of Desire, religious assent, are anything else please feel free but we should try to stay on topic henceforth.
[right][snapback]876207[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that those have no place in this thread. They must be understood before Limbo can be approached, unless we work under the Modern(ist) assumption that knowledge is diverging.

What you say about one topic will affect what must be said in another, you cannot split them apart to where everything is assumed and it's just a matter of logic, not when discussing the Faith and learning...