L'Eglise Aristotelicienne Romaine The Roman and Aristotelic Church

[Felipe...]

After speaking with Cardinal Adonnis, Felipe asked Kalixtus's servants to put the heavy painting on a chair, and looked at it again.

- Your eminence, I do not know what to answer to your kind words, I am fully flattered and I think I do not deserve such a demonstration of friendship -. He smiled again at the cardinal trying to hide that his face was red - Drawing one of these paintings is like shutting up beauty forever within the limit of the canvas. However there are people who would tell your eminence that art is nothing more than vanity and fleeting pleasure. However, I believe that your gift will honor the walls of my house and will be a memory of you wich I can never forget-.

Felipe nodded - The college of legists makes proposals for modifications in Canon Law, but it is the Curia wich must validate all our work before being officially published and taken to the Roman library-.

The young priest pondered for a moment before answering, sitting on the table and putting a hand to his chin. - There is no "Aristotelian status" per se, but rather that of believer and faithful. By definition, the believer is a person who has known, at least partially, the teachings of our Prophets and wants, with sincere conviction, to enter the community of the faithful. The faithful are those believers who have received the sacrament of baptism and are already part of the community. Therefore, we can say that a person, even a child, is fully Aristotelian when he receives baptism, even partially Aristotelian when he is a believer. However, there are two kinds of people who cannot be considered as believers: those who reject our doctrine, and those who, due to ignorance or inability, cannot understand the basis of our religion: in the first group are the heterodox, in the second one the illiterate, the hermits who live apart from society, and of course the little children, so youngs that they cannot even understand who God is, children who cannot speak and only suckle at their mother's breast. God has given us the gift of discernment, and we must choose to walk his path or be apart from Him, even though He created us all. I think the real problem is when we have the example of very young children who have been baptized, since they must confirm the sacrament of baptism in their maturity. Are they truly Aristotelian? On the one hand we can assure that "yes", but on the other hand, how can be considered a person fully Aristotelian if the only thing he knows is how to cry, eat and sleep? He has not yet had a chance to decide-.
_________________

_______.______Sanctae Mariae Rotundae cardinalis episcopus | Archiepiscopus Burdigalensis
__________..Secretarius brevium ad Principes | Sanctae Sedis Vice-cancillarius et Magnus Auditor

[Kalixtus]

Kalixtus let the young man finish, he always did, because it was part of politeness and decency. His mother always insisted on it, even if it was difficult for him, especially in his youth.

The majority of theologians follow the idea. I am less concerned with the theological truth, which is generally known or at least symbolized in the concept of the Logos. God reveals himself in the harmony of logical decisions and exceptionally rarely in chaos. This means that we can recognise in the substrate of the child the truthfulness of a divine act of creation that finds its meaning in logic. Thus the maturity of the child is reached with the ability to reproduce. God's decision whether this takes place at 13 or 14 or 15 or later. Ultimately, however, we imperfect human beings are called upon to shape this somehow - which is why we set this at 14 years. An average value with which we can work wonderfully.

I do not disagree with your analysis, but it does not get to the heart of the problem.

What if the child dies without being baptised, without any idea of God or religion. A child that just cannot decide for itself. Theologically we do not see any fault in creation - but we do see a problem in CIC. That is why I am here. I wonder if we should explore this issue or if there should be an official request for it. Because I am speaking here only for myself, out of purely administrative curiosity.

Kalixtus smiled softly. Then he looked again at the painting and he played with Felipe's words.

Yes, when I have died at least one memory will remain of me. What more can we hope for.

_________________

[Felipe...]

Felipe crossed his arms looking at the cardinal, thinking of the words the German cleric had just uttered.

We can look at this whole issue from a broader point of view.

According to Canon Law, every believer who dies, whether a child or an adult, without having received the sacrament of baptism, but who knew the basics of our religion and believed in God, can receive the sacrament of the funeral, and therefore his soul can be saved depending on the conduct he had during his life.

On the other hand, we have those children who have received the sacrament of baptism but not confirmation. They are also innocent creatures and it is really the parents who take the responsibility for the Aristotelian education of the children and therefore it is the parents who are responsible for the salvation of their children's souls until the affirmation of the sacrament.

Finally there are the newborn children, who have not had the opportunity to receive and assimilate a minimum of the basics of Aristotelianism. In my view, which may be wrong, their souls are pure, because they have not had the opportunity either to accept or to reject God, as they have not yet been able to develop the gift of reasoning given by the Almighty to humans. As their souls have not been stained by sin nor have they been seduced by the Nameless Creature, their souls would perhaps remain in spiritual limbo and God in His immense mercy would refrain from judging them.
_________________

_______.______Sanctae Mariae Rotundae cardinalis episcopus | Archiepiscopus Burdigalensis
__________..Secretarius brevium ad Principes | Sanctae Sedis Vice-cancillarius et Magnus Auditor