Does Perfect Charity save the non-Believer?

[mgrfin]

Based on Scripture alone - apart from Tradition and Magesterial Teaching - would be the pit of hell for all unbaptized infants. Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Tradtiion enlightens us about the nuanced understandings of baptism of desire and blood - Magesterial Teaching clarifies confusion.

You desire to interpret Scripture apart from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church betrays your practical protestantism.

Why would there be? And would that really matter to you? Honestly now.

Augusitne addressed the question quite well. Thomas elaborated further. We have two traditional and viable positions given what we do know and what has been defined by the Church - for unbaptized infants it’s the fires of hell albeit mild, or natural happiness without the Beautific Vision. And with these, and with the dogmatic reality of the necessity of baptism protected, you are allowed to speculate and hope that perhaps maybe, just maybe, God does something extraordinary and outside the realm of our understanding in order to give these unbaptized infants a choice for or against Him. That’s the best you can do. Period.

The agreement that stands uniform and constant from day one is that unbaptized infants cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What their suffering is like in hell (and limbo is in hell) is all that was speculated on until most recently.

Now me personally, if I had a child that died before birth, miscarried before we had an opportunity to baptize him. What would I do? I’d cry out to God for mercy, I’d acknowledge that neither I, nor my lost child, can lay any claim to heaven whatsoever and that we are utterly unworthy of it, and I would acknowledge what He has revealed, and I would entrust the soul of my child to his mercy and love. And since I trust the Good Lord, I trust that wherever he decides to put my child, it will be fine by me.

Because it’s been taught and a doctrine is a teaching. It’s not dogmatic in that it’s been explicitly defined, but it’s the logical, traditional, and reasonable result of dogmas that have been explicitely defined.

Perhaps in your mind, defined dogmas are subject to change and evolve into some understanding contrary to what they once were. But of course - you said you weren’t a modernist, so I’m sure you haven’t fallen prey to this heresy of heresies.

DuistinsDad

I would be careful who you are accusing of being a ‘practical protestant’. Name calling is out of place in any discussion on this Forum. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, youj start name-calling. You are totally out of order.

Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church come from Scripture and Tradition.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the sole interpreter and custodian of Sacred Scripture. There is no so much as a hint in Sacred Scripture that the Church can interprete into a doctrine for Limbo. I do not accept personal interpretation of Scripture as the perogative of the Christian for dogma development.

You have stepped over the bounds, again, by accusing me of something you have no right. And, additionally, you are wrong.

There is no Scripture for Limbo. Tradition is very weak. E. g., Augustine is for it, Augustine is against it. If you can’t figure out where Augustine is, and where Thomas of Aquin is then you have almost no basis for Tradition. We don’t come into the year 2008 and outline a ‘new doctrine’

Limbo is not in Scripture and probably has no Tradition in its favor. The current Magisterium will be quoted a thousand years from now as saying there is no basis for belief in Limbo via Tradition.

Limbo has gone the way of St. Christopher.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

But how can a child, an unborn child or infant choose freely?

Such simple questions.

We have infant baptism, and we have surrogates who stand up for the “baptizati”. The God-parents speak for the child: “Do you renounce Satan?”, etc. Positive responses to the questions put to the child which he cannot answer, these are answered for him.

I think the faith of the parents supplies for the dead, unbaptised infant. That is my personal opinion, and I basis it on the Rite of Baptism itself.

Christ came to save us all. Maybe it is the merits of the faith which the Church supplies. May be it is the merits of the Church itself which supplies.

The Magisterium, in releasing us from the ‘belief’ in Limbo has said to the theologians - Go for it. Come up with something else we can live with.

I can’t see ‘natural’ heaven for a child, and I don’t see an infant cast for all eternity into hell, as Augustine may have been saying.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

*]If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

DustinsDad

And if this child is born dead, then what? Trent was not answering that question. You have derived an answer that may be undeserved.

We understand the need for Baptism, and 'outside the Church…"

Trent was addressing some who may have not believed in the necessity of the First Sacrament, or membership in the Church.

We are not going to cast these souls into hell, are we. Where are the merits of Jesus Christ, and the merits of the Church, and the merits of the parents? Will not God have mercy on this infant and supply? He will not cast those souls into hell! Hell is for punishment for sins of commission and omission.

peace

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Just popping my head in /no intention of staying …but

I would be careful who you are accusing of being a ‘practical protestant’. Name calling is out of place in any discussion on this Forum. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, youj start name-calling. You are totally out of order.

You have stepped over the bounds, again, by accusing me of something you have no right. And, additionally, you are wrong.

Where have I seen *this *before?

 

[mgrfin]

Just popping my head in /no intention of staying …but

Where have I seen *this *:

I don’t know PA, where?

Nothing like your sophmoric presence to destroy a good thread.

I hope you don’t stay long.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

…The Magisterium, in releasing us from the ‘belief’ in Limbo has said to the theologians - Go for it. Come up with something else we can live with.

Nonesense. You contradict yourself.

“We don’t come into the year 2008 and outline a ‘new doctrine’”

 

[mgrfin]

Nonesense. You contradict yourself.

“We don’t come into the year 2008 and outline a ‘new doctrine’”

I find no meaning in your response

The Holy See is saying, Examine Tradition and find a solution to the question. It is not saying create a new doctrine, just find something that has always been there.

peace

 

[reluctant_saint]

Thanks for bringing that correction forth.

Limbo was done away with at the Council of Carthage in the 5th Century. It came back, and may even be consider Common teaching in the Church.

But now, Limbo is gone. You can hold on to it, but it is not now accepted as “Common Teaching”.

Augustinianism is the official theological system in the Catholic Church? Really, can you give us a source for that?

I love Augustine, but I believed Thomism was the accepted system. I don’t have a source for that, but I accept Thomas as the leader. Was Augustine an Augustinian? Seriously.

The Dominicans would not accept what you say.

Considering that Luther was an Augustinian, I didn’t think that Order would rate very highly. Thomas a Kempis, and who else besides Luther were famous members of that Order?

peace

Unfortunately, I’m just like you. I can’t tell you where I learned it, but I know I know it from somewhere. It’s my understanding Thomism, Augustinianism, and Molinism are all accepted theologies in the Catholic Church. I do believe Thomism is the most endorsed, but all three are allowed.

The best quote I can come up with now is for John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter AUGUSTINUM HIPPONSENSEM, in which he states:

“Augustine’s legacy to the theologians, whose meritorious task is to study more deeply the contents of the faith, is the immense patrimony of his thought, which is as a whole valid even now; above all, his legacy is the theological method to which he remained absolutely faithful.”

As far as whether Augustine was an Augustinian, I’m really not sure. Augustine’s theology has been greatly abused in the past. I think for the matter of Limbo, however, we clearly see this doctrine as a product of his writing.

 

[reluctant_saint]

Mgrfin,

Have you given any thought to my assertion that the natural virtue of fortitude might also lead a person to lay down his life for another? You might have missed that post. It’s post #102 on this thread on page #7.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

There is no Scripture for Limbo. Tradition is very weak. E. g., Augustine is for it, Augustine is against it. If you can’t figure out where Augustine is, and where Thomas of Aquin is then you have almost no basis for Tradition. We don’t come into the year 2008 and outline a ‘new doctrine’

OK then, let it be your way. There is no limbo. The Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and so logically unbaptized infants go to Hell and will suffer for eternity.

Happier?

The current Magisterium will be quoted a thousand years from now as saying there is no basis for belief in Limbo via Tradition.

Show me that Magisterial teaching…

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

We are not going to cast these souls into hell, are we. Where are the merits of Jesus Christ, and the merits of the Church, and the merits of the parents? Will not God have mercy on this infant and supply? He will not cast those souls into hell! Hell is for punishment for sins of commission and omission.

Actually, no. Everybody is naturally going to hell because of the original sin that separates us from God. This is why baptism us necessary.

Trent was addressing some who may have not believed in the necessity of the First Sacrament, or membership in the Church.

The question is: why must they be baptized as soon a possible?

 

[mgrfin]

Unfortunately, I’m just like you. I can’t tell you where I learned it, but I know I know it from somewhere. It’s my understanding Thomism, Augustinianism, and Molinism are all accepted theologies in the Catholic Church. I do believe Thomism is the most endorsed, but all three are allowed.

The best quote I can come up with now is for John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter AUGUSTINUM HIPPONSENSEM, in which he states:

“Augustine’s legacy to the theologians, whose meritorious task is to study more deeply the contents of the faith, is the immense patrimony of his thought, which is as a whole valid even now; above all, his legacy is the theological method to which he remained absolutely faithful.”

As far as whether Augustine was an Augustinian, I’m really not sure. Augustine’s theology has been greatly abused in the past. I think for the matter of Limbo, however, we clearly see this doctrine as a product of his writing.

After thinking about it, I believe NO system of Theology has precedence over the other.

All my years of study Theology, howeever,l never let me understand that Augustine’s system wins out.

Actually, I find his theology difficult. He is the Doctor of Grace, although I find his thought just seminal.

I believe that no system has preference. For example, in the Catholic Theology on Predestination the Holy See says neither the Jesuits, nor the Thomists, nor others wins out - fight it out among yourselves.

In Moral Theology, we had probablism, and probabliorism, etc. Some are more acceptable than others. None is preferred.

Peace

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

To you, good acts are habitual, to the point that a really evil person is not going to turn his life around, or to be saved.

This is pure nonsense. We do not know that the Good Thief was a good man, or that the Good Samaritan was in the habit of doing good deeds.

Hardened criminals, sinners of the worst variety, who would cut your throat as soon as look at you can repent in an instant.

I agree. My point is not that it takes a particular length of time “doing good” to be able to “choose God” but rather that it’s more likely that one who DOES develop that habit will “choose God”.

The story of the Good Thief is meant to show this to us. He was a death bed confession of a bad man.

It is nice to talk about ‘habit’, and I do believe in it. But a life of ‘good habits’ begins with a small step. Where the repentant sinner has been has been a habit of sinning, transformed by God’s grace to just just one good act, to begin a good life.

The worst of humans can finally accept the actual grace to turn things around. Bad habits can become one good act by Grace.

peace

I absolutely agree. One act IS all it takes. My point is one of probabilities. The “good act” during life is NOT the thing that “saves” one. The FINAL act of choosing God, of choosing that “thing” behind the motivation OF that prior “good act”, is what saves, as “salvation” is gained by choice at the END OF THE RACE and not anytime before that.

The “last choice” is always separate from any “good deed/act” that one does in life. No “good act” saves us. Only the correct choice of God at the end saves us.

My point is also that one needn’t know of Jesus proper to be saved. A person only needs to choose that “thing” which has been shown to them BY GOD that He has given them to represent Jesus.

The “isolated unfortunate” with no access to knowledge of Jesus proper, or the Church, or anything related to Christianity can be saved if they choose that which God has presented them with in representation of Jesus at his end.

But it’s that FINAL act of choosing what God has provided as one’s “savior” that saves. NOT doing perfect acts of charity during life, even if they are so-called final acts, as THE only final act of the human person is the choice of choosing God or self.

 

[mgrfin]

I agree. My point is not that it takes a particular length of time “doing good” to be able to “choose God” but rather that it’s more likely that one who DOES develop that habit will “choose God”.

I absolutely agree. One act IS all it takes. My point is one of probabilities. The “good act” during life is NOT the thing that “saves” one. The FINAL act of choosing God, of choosing that “thing” behind the motivation OF that prior “good act”, is what saves, as “salvation” is gained by choice at the END OF THE RACE and not anytime before that.

The “last choice” is always separate from any “good deed/act” that one does in life. No “good act” saves us. Only the correct choice of God at the end saves us.

My point is also that one needn’t know of Jesus proper to be saved. A person only needs to choose that “thing” which has been shown to them BY GOD that He has given them to represent Jesus.

The “isolated unfortunate” with no access to knowledge of Jesus proper, or the Church, or anything related to Christianity can be saved if they choose that which God has presented them with in representation of Jesus at his end.

But it’s that FINAL act of choosing what God has provided as one’s “savior” that saves. NOT doing perfect acts of charity during life, even if they are so-called final acts, as THE only final act of the human person is the choice of choosing God or self.

I more or less agree with you. A real distinction between us and Lutherans, lets say, is that they seem convinced of salvation once justified.

We as Catholics have no guaranteed that in the final end, we will continue to choose God. That is why we pray, “…Pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

peace

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I more or less agree with you. A real distinction between us and Lutherans, lets say, is that they seem convinced of salvation once justified.

We as Catholics have no guaranteed that in the final end, we will continue to choose God. That is why we pray, “…Pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

peace

Amen, indeed!

It’s interesting how easy it is to show protestants by their own words how they can indeed lose their salvation if they do evil, which makes their use of the word “assured” utterly meaningless.

Many of them then come back with (essentially), “I’m in prayer at each moment of my life asking for forgivenenss from Jesus alone and recieving it!”, which sounds like not only a great “autopilot” system if they can do that and have a “real life” simultaneously, but also like a great way to be able to DO anything, good or evil, in any degree, because anything you do is instantly FORGIVEN!

Pretty nifty!

Although, if that really WERE the way it works, any action would have the consequences of “going to heaven”, which obviates the need for “salvation” completely. But then, the great protestant “goal” is complete “freedom” from authority with complete assurance of “salvation”, isn’t it.

That’s rather nicely accomplished with the “autopilot” technique, n’est-ce pas?

 

[DustinsDad]

I would be careful who you are accusing of being a ‘practical protestant’…You are totally out of order.

And you shouldn’t propose to be presenting the Catholic faith when you are so off base as to declare things anathema that aren’t anathema and shouldn’t declare independant theolgoical speculations to be dogma when in fact, they are not dogma and not even close to said dogma.

And your cry of “limbo is not in Scripture” is as Protestant as it gets.

Further, no one declared limbo to be dogma, it’s the mere charitible, reasonable, and logical conclusion to what has been explicitly defined as dogma - that is binding. Deny a dogma and you cut yourself off from Holy Mother Church.

Dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church come from Scripture and Tradition.

Dogmas are also contained in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition implicitly or explicitly, but they are laid out and defined explicitly by the Magesterium of the Church under the protection of the Holy Spirit by the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you deny this?

There is no so much as a hint in Sacred Scripture that the Church can interprete into a doctrine for Limbo.

A doctrine sure - a dogma, no, because we weren’t given that in the deposit of faith. Limbo again is the speculation of what type of eternity unbaptized infants will be in, with the dogmatic understanding that baptism is necessary for entrance into Heaven. And the Church has already interpreted for us that necessity.

We can legitimately hope that there might be a way not known to us that Our Lord can offer them some sort of Baptism, but we do not know this. The Church is clear that no other way was revealed in the deposit of faith (CCC 1257). And all your creative and imaginitive musings ain’t gonna reveal that which was not revealed.

Therefore, for you to declare this unknowable thing, this speculative intangible, as the new norm and dogma of the Church, and that the traditional understanding of limbo dating back centuries and centuries is now “dispensed with” is ludicrous and scandalous.

(Continued below)

 

[DustinsDad]

I do not accept personal interpretation of Scripture as the perogative of the Christian for dogma development.

Then why do you base all of your arguments on your personal interpretations of Scripture apart from HMC? Even your heroic fireman question that started this whole thing was based on your erronious personal interpretation of “Greater love has no man…”, which you use to dispense with a number of dogmatic infallible truths of the Catholic faith.

You have stepped over the bounds, again, by accusing me of something you have no right…

“…they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty.” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, cf 18)

There is no Scripture for Limbo.

There is for the necessity of baptism.

Tradition is very weak.

The very document you cited earlier stated it is a part of the ordinary Magistarium…and as you state now, the doctors of the Church have addressed this question down through the ages - quite uniformly I might add as to whether or not unbaptized infants enter heaven, they differ on the sort of hell they experience.

And despite the impression one gets when listening to modernists, this is not a new question that the enlightened 20th century theologin stumbled upon - it’s been around as long as there have been miscarriages. Deal with it. Don’t try to invent something new just to make you feel better. Trust that what God does is perfect. Don’t try to tell Him what to do.

E. g., Augustine is for it, Augustine is against it. If you can’t figure out where Augustine is, and where Thomas of Aquin is then you have almost no basis for Tradition. We don’t come into the year 2008 and outline a ‘new doctrine’

It is not at all difficult to understand Augustine and Thomas’ teachings on limbo. The only difficulty you have appears to be understanding that even cute cudley little babies need Sanctifying Grace to get to heaven. And the only way revealed to us that this happens is through baptism. Deal with it. Pray for those who weren’t given this awesome gift, but don’t engage in futile attempts to rewrite Divinely Revealed Truth in the process.

The current Magisterium will be quoted a thousand years from now as saying there is no basis for belief in Limbo via Tradition.

Care to make a wager on that. .

Peace,

DustinsDad

 

[TOME]

Dustin Dad,

The contemporay theological thought on Limbo, which has lead to the statements of Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II, has been that the concept of Limbo is primarily a philosophical conclusion and it does not have the strong scriptural basis necessary to be a doctrine, let alone dogma, that can be said to have come from the “Apostolic Tradition”. If Limbo had a stronger scriptural basis and wider acceptance of the whole Church (Western and Eastern Traditions) then I doubt we would have experienced the movement away from the concept of Limbo which we have experienced these past 5 or 6 decades.

There are those who, for sound reasons of their own, adhere to this belief and if I am not mistaken are allowed by the Magisterium to continue to believe in the existence of Limbo, however, I think we should all give a little more study to contemporary theology on this matter and come to a better understanding how the theology of the post Vatican II era compares and contrast to the theology on Limbo of pre-Vatican II thought and teachings.

 

[mgrfin]

Dogmas are also contained in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition implicitly or explicitly, but they are laid out and defined explicitly by the Magesterium of the Church under the protection of the Holy Spirit by the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you deny this?]

Yes, I deny it. I have absolutely no doubt it is not a dogma. It is not part of the Magisterium of the Church where is has to be believed as common teaching of the Catholic Church.

It it is not in the Written Word of God, and it is not in the Unwritten Word of God, it is something not revealed by God to the Apostles to be handed down. It is not part of the Deposit of Faith. Since this is so, it is a nice theory which is not heretical, and you can believe it if you want, but it is not a defined Dogma of the Faith, ‘de fide definita’. It is not something anyone must believe.

The traditional understanding of limbo dating back centuries and centuries can now be “dispensed with” . It is not ludicrous, and can be believed if you want.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad

I think I have said enough. You have said too much. Let others, for whom you do not have contempt, explain it to you. Or bring it up to “Ask an Apologist”.

peace