dogma

[DonMack]

guanophore… I am Catholic… I’m dropping out of discussions until I can respond in a way that doesn’t create caustic responses. Meekness is certainly something I need to work on.

 

[thistle]

But it was taught to people, none-the-less.

You said it was a Church teaching. That is incorrect. It has never been a Church teaching.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore… I am Catholic… I’m dropping out of discussions until I can respond in a way that doesn’t create caustic responses. Meekness is certainly something I need to work on.

You are right that meekness and charity are certainly virtues that are strongly pressed into service in these discussions. I pray that you will quickly be able to participate.

Besides, you are not responsible for someone else’s’ reactions to what you say, only the way you say it. Without a doubt, you will have strong replies in this forum! Goes with the territory.

 

[guanophore]

aemcpa… wow… did I cause that response? I am truly sorry.

It just sounds like maybe aemcpa did not take your expression in the same tone you stated it. It is difficult on the internet to discern the nuances.

In our modern relativistic culture, there is a tendency for humans to think of ourselves as the centerpoint of discerning Truth. We have been taught to do, as you seem to mention in your post, discernment by way of our own mental process (somewhat of a scientific method).

This stands in stark contrast to learning through divine revelation, where one starts from the perspective that God has revealed all that we need to know through the Church. If one embraces this perspective, hearing a person say “I will consider it” may come across as though one believes oneself to be a more accurate standard of measurement than the God who created him. Does that make sense?

 

[bzkoss236]

You said it was a Church teaching. That is incorrect. It has never been a Church teaching.

Church teaching = it was taught by the Church

It was never taught as an absolute truth, but as a theory. It was still none-the-less taught by the Church, and hence, it was Church teaching.

Church teaching is not all Church teaching is doctrine, and not all doctrine is dogma.

 

[guanophore]

Church teaching = it was taught by the Church

It was never taught as an absolute truth, but as a theory. It was still none-the-less taught by the Church, and hence, it was Church teaching.

Church teaching is not all Church teaching is doctrine, and not all doctrine is dogma.

This is true, but I think this is the very fact that confuses so many people. It is difficult for the run of the mill Catholic to distinguish between infallible teaching, and pious speculation.

Dogma is an articulated doctrine, something that belongs to the once for all divine deposit of faith that came to us from the Apostles. They are formulated statements that assert and define the Apostolic faith, such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the theotokos, etc.

But often such dogmas are presented alongside pious speculations such as “limbo” such that the recipient cannot tell the difference.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This is true, but I think this is the very fact that confuses so many people. It is difficult for the run of the mill Catholic to distinguish between infallible teaching, and pious speculation.

Dogma is an articulated doctrine, something that belongs to the once for all divine deposit of faith that came to us from the Apostles. They are formulated statements that assert and define the Apostolic faith, such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the theotokos, etc.

But often such dogmas are presented alongside pious speculations such as “limbo” such that the recipient cannot tell the difference.

That is precisely why we have the Only-infallible-doctrines-believed-Catholic That is a person who only believes what is set down EXPLICITLY as infallible.

There is a better way. It is where we believe all that the Church teaches, with the awareness that all doctrines are subject to further development. No one has actually disproved Limbo, nor has the belief in Limbo become a heresy or any other sort of error. It’s just that other Catholic doctrines have developed in a way which seems to render Limbo rather unnecessary. However, there is still the question of the Old Testament Saints who were barred from Heaven until the coming of the Messiah and His Victory over sin and death that reconciled us once again to the Father. That is where Limbo originated, or Limbus Patrum.

In Catholic elementary school back in the 50’s in my part of the US, Limbo was taught as doctrine. As I grew and learned more, I realized that Limbo is not really doctrine in the way that the Trinity is. Unfortunately WAY TOO MANY US Catholics are still stuck with an elementary school education of Catholicism mentality, and sometimes not even that! In an over reaction to their confusion and befuddlement over the seemingly shifting sands of Catholic Doctrine, they take this Only-infallible-doctrines-believed attitude. But that is just as mistaken as their overly simplistic elementary education understanding.

There is no reason to reject Church teaching because it is not infallibly pronounced doctrine. However, it should always be borne in mind that some things are in a gray area, which may still be in flux. But that is life here on earth is it not? The Church has everything we need for Salvation. In the coming Judgement, no one will be accused that they believed the Church too much. As Isaiah says, the light of the Church will guide even fools to salvation. It is the proud intellectuals that have more to fear.

 

[DonMack]

guanophore…

It just sounds like maybe aemcpa did not take your expression in the same tone you stated it. It is difficult on the internet to discern the nuances.

After a little honest relfection I have to admit to a little bit of sarcasm in my post that aemcpa responded to. That’s why I’m 'timing myself out". Reading many of your past posts is helping me realize a better idea of meekness.

 

[thistle]

Church teaching = it was taught by the Church

It was never taught as an absolute truth, but as a theory. It was still none-the-less taught by the Church, and hence, it was Church teaching.

Church teaching is not all Church teaching is doctrine, and not all doctrine is dogma.

I repeat it was NEVER a Church teaching, neither an infallible teaching nor a non-infallible teaching. That fact that some bishops and priests believed it and taught it does not make it a Church teaching.
It was only ever a theological hypothesis as it remains today.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore…

After a little honest relfection I have to admit to a little bit of sarcasm in my post that aemcpa responded to. That’s why I’m 'timing myself out". Reading many of your past posts is helping me realize a better idea of meekness.

Believe me, I had quite a few sarcastic and downright uncharitable posts, especially when I first came here. I found it does help to preview the post, and if I am very emotionally charged about it, to wait on a reply.

 

[billcu1]

I repeat it was NEVER a Church teaching, neither an infallible teaching nor a non-infallible teaching. That fact that some bishops and priests believed it and taught it does not make it a Church teaching.
It was only ever a theological hypothesis as it remains today.

If it is dogma does that mean it’s infallible? All I know is there is fallible and infallible teachings depending on how the holy father is speaking.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

thistle:

I repeat it was NEVER a Church teaching, neither an infallible teaching nor a non-infallible teaching.

Please define for us what you mean by a non-infallible Church teaching.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Limbo for infants has NEVER been a Church teaching. It has only ever been a theological hypothesis.

(Edited)

For many centuries (about seven, to be exact) Popes, Bishops, Doctors, Saints, and theologians unanimously accepted and taught the theory of Limbo (limbus infantium). As recently as 1885, the old Baltimore Catechism described it as a “common belief” (Q.632).

St. Thomas Aquinas (the greatest Doctor of the Church) taught about this in Summa Theologica, Article 3.

Pope Pius VI taught this (he was one of about 14 Popes to make a similar teaching):

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk. Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. [Pope Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei

,1794]If, for seven Centuries, Popes, Saints, Catechisms, and Doctors of the Church unanimously taught a single idea regarding the fate of unbaptized babies, it is (or was) a DOCTRINE of the Church.

Get used to it, and quit calling it a “theological hypothesis.” It was a DOCTRINE. It might not have been a DOGMA (and it surely was not), but it was far more than a “theological hypothesis.”

If we reject the idea that Limbo was a Doctrine but not a Dogma, then we reject the idea that there is any such a thing at all as Doctrine that is not Dogma.

 

[guanophore]

If it is dogma does that mean it’s infallible? All I know is there is fallible and infallible teachings depending on how the holy father is speaking.

All of the Teachings of the Church are infallible. This is because they are part of the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith which was given by Christ to the Church through the Apostles.

There are many other teachings and disciplines that are not part of the Deposit of Faith, which closed with the death of the last Apostle.

Infallibility is a gift of the HS that prevents the Church from teaching error. I am not sure what you mean by “depending upon how the holy father is speaking”. The vast majority of the Teachings are unrelated to the “holy father speaking”. Perhaps you are making reference to an ex Cathedra statement?

The catechism is a good summary of the Teachings of Jesus which are preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

(Edited)

For many centuries (about seven, to be exact) Popes, Bishops, Doctors, Saints, and theologians unanimously accepted and taught the theory of Limbo (limbus infantium). As recently as 1885, the old Baltimore Catechism described it as a “common belief” (Q.632).

St. Thomas Aquinas (the greatest Doctor of the Church) taught about this in Summa Theologica, Article 3.

Pope Pius VI taught this (he was one of about 14 Popes to make a similar teaching):

If, for seven Centuries, Popes, Saints, Catechisms, and Doctors of the Church unanimously taught a single idea regarding the fate of unbaptized babies, it is (or was) a DOCTRINE of the Church.

No, David. What makes something a doctrine of the Church is whether it was committed to the Church by Jesus. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the Apostles or their successors as represented in the Early Fathers ever mentioned anything like “limbo”.

Individuals espousing and teaching an idea does not make it a doctrine.

Get used to it, and quit calling it a "theological hypothesis."  It was a DOCTRINE.  It might not have been a DOGMA (and it surely was not), but it was ***far more*** than a "theological hypothesis."

I will agree with you that it was taught and presented along with the doctrines and dogmas so as to be indistinguishable from them. However, you seem to be struggling with the definition of these terms anyway.

If we reject the idea that Limbo was a Doctrine but not a Dogma, then we reject the idea that there is any such a thing at all as Doctrine that is not Dogma.

Yes, and you appear to be confused about both of them!

 

[thistle]

Church teaching = it was taught by the Church

It was never taught as an absolute truth, but as a theory. It was still none-the-less taught by the Church, and hence, it was Church teaching.

Church teaching is not all Church teaching is doctrine, and not all doctrine is dogma.

Church teachings, whether infallible or non-infallible, must be accepted by all Catholics.
We have NEVER been obligated to believe in limbo for infants because it was and remains only a theological hypothesis. It has NEVER been a Church teaching.
Teachings are not optional beliefs. Teachings must be accepted. Even disciplines must be accepted, although we are free to disagree with them.

 

[thistle]

Nonsense. Rubbish. Utter poppycock. Lies and deceit. Almost heresy.

For many centuries (about seven, to be exact) Popes, Bishops, Doctors, Saints, and theologians unanimously accepted and taught the theory of Limbo (limbus infantium). As recently as 1885, the old Baltimore Catechism described it as a “common belief” (Q.632).

St. Thomas Aquinas (the greatest Doctor of the Church) taught about this in Summa Theologica, Article 3.

Pope Pius VI taught this (he was one of about 14 Popes to make a similar teaching):

If, for seven Centuries, Popes, Saints, Catechisms, and Doctors of the Church unanimously taught a single idea regarding the fate of unbaptized babies, it is (or was) a DOCTRINE of the Church.

Get used to it, and quit calling it a “theological hypothesis.” It was a DOCTRINE. It might not have been a DOGMA (and it surely was not), but it was far more than a “theological hypothesis.”

If we reject the idea that Limbo was a Doctrine but not a Dogma, then we reject the idea that there is any such a thing at all as Doctrine that is not Dogma.

Limbo for Infants has never been anything else other than a theological hypothesis and if you do not withdraw the comments you made about me (your opening comments) which which I have highlighted I will report you to the moderators.

 

[DavidFilmer]

No, David. What makes something a doctrine of the Church is whether it was committed to the Church by Jesus. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the Apostles or their successors as represented in the Early Fathers ever mentioned anything like “limbo”.

That is completely irrelevant. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the Apostles of their successors as represented in the Early Fathers ever mentioned anything like “Baptism by heretics is valid.” In fact, EACH AND EVERY EARLY FATHER who spoke on the subject (before Pope Stephen settled the matter) spoke against it. St. Cyprian would not even use the term “baptism” in this context (he referred to those “made wet by heretics” - I think that’s funny).

The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, and not by the Early Church Fathers. The Church does not need the Fathers to define doctrine, and the Church can define doctrine that opposes each and every Early Church Father, and She has done so.

The idea of Limbo was not even opposed by the Fathers. If the Church can define as Dogma something that was opposed by every prior ECF, She could certainly define as **doctrine **the idea of limbo, which was not even mentioned by the EFFs. Maybe the Church could also define (as doctrine) the idea that artificial birth control was not permissible.

Individuals espousing and teaching an idea does not make it a doctrine.

But when Saints, and Doctors, and fourteen Popes espouse a teaching, it DOES make it a doctrine.

I will agree with you that it was taught and presented along with the doctrines and dogmas so as to be indistinguishable from them. However, you seem to be struggling with the definition of these terms anyway.

The Catholic Church has no such definition, and uses the terms “doctrine” and “dogma” interchangeably. Modern Catholic theologians have adopted the term “dogma” to refer to a teaching that has been promulgated in an infallible manner (as opposed to “doctrine,” which has not). I am using the terms in this context.

The Faithful are not expected to make any such distinction. If a Catholic lived six centuries ago and disputed the idea of Limbo, he would be a heretic.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

DavidFilmer:

The Catholic Church has no such definition, and uses the terms “doctrine” and “dogma” interchangeably. Modern Catholic theologians have adopted the term “dogma” to refer to a teaching that has been promulgated in an infallible manner (as opposed to “doctrine,” which has not). I am using the terms in this context.

The Faithful are not expected to make any such distinction. If a Catholic lived six centuries ago and disputed the idea of Limbo, he would be a heretic.

Luke 16:22 speaks of the “bosom of Abraham”, which I believe is the Church’s Limbo. IOW, Limbo (but not that exact word) was a teaching of Jesus Christ passed on to the Apostles. When Jesus “Descended into hell” as we say in the creed, it was not the Hell of Eternal Damnation, nor was it Heaven obviously, but the abode of the dead, where the Saints of the O.T. awaited the coming Redeemer, or Limbus Patrum.

Limbus infantium, or Limbo for unbaptized children (and all others that were unbaptized) is somewhat different in my mind. Even as children, we were taught at the end of the world there would only be Heaven and Hell left. No purgatory, and no limbo. So in any event, Limbo was always taught to be a temporary place.

I with you David.

 

[billcu1]

All of the Teachings of the Church are infallible. This is because they are part of the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith which was given by Christ to the Church through the Apostles.

There are many other teachings and disciplines that are not part of the Deposit of Faith, which closed with the death of the last Apostle.

Infallibility is a gift of the HS that prevents the Church from teaching error. I am not sure what you mean by “depending upon how the holy father is speaking”. The vast majority of the Teachings are unrelated to the “holy father speaking”. Perhaps you are making reference to an ex Cathedra statement?

The catechism is a good summary of the Teachings of Jesus which are preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

I thought there were two different teachings concerning fallibility and infallibility depending on how things were being spoken. I don’t know if it has to do with ecumenical councils or synods or what. I’m still a little confused though on what dogma is.