G
Genesis315
Guest
The other day I remembered another precedent for the extraordinary cleansing of unbaptized infants from original sin–the Holy Innocents, who feast day we celebrate on the liturgical calendar.
Your theological position on this issue is self-contradictory and extremely confused.It’s not a good idea to call limbo “a fringe of hell.” Our contemporaries cannot easily reconcile unending natural happiness with the word “hell.” It’s much better to emphasize that limbo is a state of eternal happiness, even a kind of salvation, for those who die in original sin only. By noting that those in limbo are still burdened with original sin, and that they are being punished for this state of unremitted sin by being deprived of the beatific vision, we have preserved Catholic dogma and avoided heresy.
I believe that the above position is supported by the mention of a “hope” for “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants in *CCC *1261, and that the above reasoning enables us to reconcile CCC 1261 with Pope Pius VI’s teaching on limbo.
I don’t understand why any Catholic would deny that limbo is “a third final destination.” By no means did Pope Pius VI deny that limbo, properly understood, is an eternal destiny for some human beings. The natural happiness in limbo is unending; therefore, limbo is a final destination for those whose salvation is not heaven.
We must not misinterpret Pope Pius VI’s condemnation of the Jansenist attack on limbo, and thus confuse our fellow Catholics. Here’s what Pius VI actually says in the 1794 constitution Auctorem fidei (in Deferrari’s translation of old Denzinger number 1526):It is contradictory in the extreme to claim that those who die in original sin have perfect natural happiness and salvation and also that they are in the limbo described by Pope Pius VI (which he refers to as 'the punishment of the condemned . . .] ’ and ‘eternal damnation’ . . .]. It is absurd to say that those who die in original sin only are both punished forever by being deprived of the Beatific Vision, yet have salvation (apart from God, no less!) and are not in Hell (yet they are punished forever) and will be happy forever (even though they are punished forever and are not in Heaven). . . .] Pius VI clearly spoke against those who ‘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’. This middle place is limbo as a third final destination, such as you support.
Ron Conte
No, I have not misunderstood Pope Pius VI’s teaching on limbo–as can be verified by anyone who takes the time to read carefully my post #43 on this thread.You have misunderstood what the Pope said, and badly so. The result is that you are maintaining a position which directly contradicts what he said. It is so absurd for me to have to even point out that you are reading a statement that clearly says ‘A’ and yet you are claiming that it says ‘not A’.
To clarify my understanding of Limbo:
Ron
- Limbo as a fringe of Hell is a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This is the place where those who die in original sin only go, not to a place of natural happiness, but to a place of eternal but limited punishment.
- Limbo as a third final destination is the concept which has not been taught by the Church, and which is the middle place which Pius VI clearly and plainly speaks against.
- the Limbo of the Fathers is also a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This is like an upper level or fringe of Purgatory and is not a final destination.
- Limbo as a fringe of Heaven, but without the Beatific vision; this idea is heretical.
Pope - The Bishop of Rome and the head of The Roman Catholic Church… American Heritage Dictionary. There’s nothing in the Bible that makes reference to such a position. Now I know the Catholic Church looks upon St. Peter as the first Pope. If that’s what the Catholic Church belives then fine with me…I don’t believe in the in that doctrine, when I was in the Catholic Church I didn’t believe it.Your theological position on this issue is self-contradictory and extremely confused.
Ron Conte
- the word limbo means fringe
- the Magisterium has repeatedly clearly taught that those who die in original sin only go to a place in Hell, which some call limbo, where they are punished forever, but will lesser punishments than those who die having lost the state of grace in their souls by actual mortal sin. (see citations above)
- This is fringe of hell is not a place of perfect natural happiness. This latter idea is a different use of the word limbo, one condemned by Pius VI.
- It is contradictory in the extreme to claim that those who die in original sin have perfect natural happiness and salvation and also that they are in the limbo described by Pope Pius VI (which he refers to as ‘the punishment of the condemned’ and ‘eternal damnation’). It is absurd to say that those who die in original sin only are both punished forever by being deprived of the Beatific Vision, yet have salvation (apart from God, no less!) and are not in Hell (yet they are punished forever) and will be happy forever (even though they are punished forever and are not in Heaven).
- Pius VI clear spoke against those who ‘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’. This middle place is limbo as a third final destination, such as you support.
Maybe in my hast or maybe it was just my subconcious ommitting Hell, but your right; there will be Heaven and Hell. God wants it this way so that, everyone will see His justice and know that His Word is fullfilled.Actually at the end of time there will be Heaven and Hell, not just Heaven.
Could you back up your posion with the Church documents and history of baptism of infants without the sacrament in the womb?
If we look first at the new testament and read, Acts 16,15.33; Acts18,8; and 1 Cor 1,16. reference is made to baptizing the entire household or family. We should asume that there were children that made up some of those families. The Cat. of the Catholic Church makes mention of this # 1252. My particular favorite is Mt 28,19. Baptizing everyone (all peoples)includes babies.
There are two final destinations: Heaven and HellIn other words your saying Limbo is the highest point one’s soul can ( hope ) obtaine, or your telling me Limbo is Heaven?
But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Session 6, July 6th, 1439).No, I have not misunderstood Pope Pius VI’s teaching on limbo–as can be verified by anyone who takes the time to read carefully my post #43 on this thread.
It would be astounding if Pope Pius VI’s words were to be twisted into a condemnation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s concept of limbo as a state in which unbaptized infants are eternally united with God through natural knowledge and love (while at the same time being punished for the guilt of original sin by being deprived of the beatific vision).
St. Thomas clearly taught the existence of a limbo in which there is unending, unmerited natural happiness. Please see his teaching in the Summa theologiae:
newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm
newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm#2
I also recommend that everyone interested in limbo take the time to read Patrick J. Toner’s article on it in The Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Is anyone seriously going to maintain that St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, the Common Doctor, fell into heresy on the subjects of original sin and limbo, and that Pope Pius VI was implicitly condemning St. Thomas for this heresy?
Huh?
Keep and spread the Faith.
No, the correct translation is:Ron Conte
“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Session 6, July 6th, 1439).Ron
Ron Conte
“Limbo as a place of eternal natural happiness without the Beatific Vision has been condemned by the Church.”
In 1794, Pope Pius VI taught that it is wrong to call limbo a fable (in the constitution Auctorem fidei; Denzinger 1526).
Ron Conte
“Therefore, Limbo as a third final resting place has been rejected by the ordinary Magisterium, but the limbo as a fringe of Hell has been taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.”
SorryRon Conte
“You have misunderstood what the Pope said, and badly so. The result is that you are maintaining a position which directly contradicts what he said.” Refering to Pope Pius VI’s condemnation of the Jansenist attack on limbo.
**Proof ???Ron Conte
“As to your claim that St. Thomas believed in limbo, the portion of the Summa that you cite was not written by him.”
They were martyrs for Jesus Himself. They died in his place therefore are martyrs .The other day I remembered another precedent for the extraordinary cleansing of unbaptized infants from original sin–the Holy Innocents, who feast day we celebrate on the liturgical calendar.
Amen to that…Maybe in my hast or maybe it was just my subconcious ommitting Hell, but your right; there will be Heaven and Hell. God wants it this way so that, everyone will see His justice and know that His Word is fullfilled.
We have our whole life to either accept the Word of the Lord or not. It’s a choice, we’re given choices. I personally don’t believe in Limbo ( purgatory ). I believe in Heaven & hell, it’s as far as I take it.But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Session 6, July 6th, 1439).
Your claim that those who die in original sin only go to a third final resting place of perfect natural happiness is contradicted by the Council of Florence.
As to your claim that St. Thomas believed in limbo, the portion of the Summa that you cite was not written by him.
Elsewhere, in his commentary on Matthew 25, St. Thomas concludes that there are only two final resting places, Heaven and Hell.
{25:46} And these shall go into eternal punishment, but the just shall go into eternal life.
Ron
Limbo (which I don’t believe in) is different from Purgatory (which I do believe in),We have our whole life to either accept the Word of the Lord or not. It’s a choice, we’re given choices. I personally don’t believe in Limbo ( purgatory ). I believe in Heaven & hell, it’s as far as I take it.
Concerning the two Summa theologiae articles on limbo, the translation published by the English Dominicans says the following:But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Session 6, July 6th, 1439).
Your claim that those who die in original sin only go to a third final resting place of perfect natural happiness is contradicted by the Council of Florence.
As to your claim that St. Thomas believed in limbo, the portion of the Summa that you cite was not written by him.
Elsewhere, in his commentary on Matthew 25, St. Thomas concludes that there are only two final resting places, Heaven and Hell.
{25:46} And these shall go into eternal punishment, but the just shall go into eternal life.
Ron
Limbo and Purgatory are NOT the same thing.We have our whole life to either accept the Word of the Lord or not. It’s a choice, we’re given choices. I personally don’t believe in Limbo ( purgatory ). I believe in Heaven & hell, it’s as far as I take it.