Hell, Limbo, Pope Innocent III, Council of Florence and St. Thomas Aquinas' limbus infantium

[PluniaZ]

So you don’t have to obey the mujtahids?

 

[SalamKhan]

So you don’t have to obey the mujtahids?

You asked for a singular religious authority, not whether Islam has any religious authorities (plural). The layperson is encouraged to follow the learned ones in the principles of the religion, so long as the learned ones’ foundation is the Qur’an, Sunnah, the way of the Salaf, and `ijma of the Ummah.

 

[PluniaZ]

You asked for a singular religious authority, not whether Islam has any religious authorities (plural). The layperson is encouraged to follow the learned ones in the principles of the religion, so long as the learned ones’ foundation is the Qur’an, Sunnah, the way of the Salaf, and `ijma of the Ummah.

So it’s only encouraged? You can do whatever you want, as long as you think it’s the correct interpretation of the religion?

 

[SalamKhan]

So it’s only encouraged? You can do whatever you want, as long as you think it’s the correct interpretation of the religion?

This topic falls under taqlid. ‘Encouraged’ was not the right word, for the average layperson, taqlid is obligatory.

 

[PluniaZ]

This topic falls under taqlid. ‘Encouraged’ was not the right word, for the average layperson, taqlid is obligatory.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

 

[SalamKhan]

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

No problem. May Allah guide us both to the straight path and protect us from misguidance.

 

[Tyrel]

I’m not discussing the scientific studies or debate of geocentrism, I’m talking about the theological position of the Catholic Church.

Those were two propositions, not one. :… the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."

Mea culpa, you are apparently exactly right that it should be read as a list of two conjunctions, not one great big conjunction (though, for reasons which will become obvious in a second, they should still be read as a condemnation of a conjunction). I missed that - thank you for that. Notice too that upon closer inspection, the statement considered formally heretical was that the sun was at the center of the universe. The second statement is explicitly not considered heretical, but merely of erroneous faith (meaning, presumably, that it was at the time contrary to the impulse of religious assent). That seems, though, to further undermine any insinuation that this poses a problem for the Church’s infallibility.

 

[thinkandmull]

I’ll have to think about that. That may be right - but in any case, why think that the CDF drew the wrong conclusion? Can you find anywhere where the liturgy says that the children born with original sin but no mortal sin will be saved? I can’t.

Its in the document you quoted. The Church cannot prescribe prayers that contradict truth divine. So the babies go to heaven

 

[thinkandmull]

I was an ex Muslim, who wanted to become Catholic (you can check my early posts on this forum). On the matter of geocentrism, those against Galileo examined two of his propositions and clearly said that they were “formally heretical” and “contrary to Sacred Scripture and Church Fathers”, if something is formally heretical, there is no need for official definitions in order for it to be a teaching of the Church, otherwise you’re saying that the Trinity was merely a theory prior to it being officially defined.

As for the issue of unbaptized infants, I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of ex cathedra teachings. Here is one:
*
"It firmly believes, professes and teaches*[infallible language] that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians."

As for the assertion that some things were not infallible teachings but only opinions, I’ve heard it before. If the popes or the church did not teach infallibly on these certain matters, it’s because they never have taught anything infallibly.

This quote does not mean that unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven, but that in their opinion is was unlikely. “the only remedy available” in reasonable hope. That hope has grown to the point that Catholic funerals can be held for unbaptized babies.

As for Galileo, that decree was a Holy Office document, not straight from the Pope. And it was sent only to the Inquisition, not the bishops. It was disciplinary

 

[thinkandmull]

Ok, I can see the confusion. I was actually trying to look up the condemnation so I could reread the wording, but I didn’t find it before I decided to respond. When I looked at this for myself because I found it to be cause for doubt, I noticed a few things. First of all, that if Einstein was wrong about the aether, then as far as I can tell, the Michelson-Morley experiment continues to stand as outstandingly surprising evidence for geocentrism, unless the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction thesis is correct. So if Einstein is wrong (and the jury is still out on this in science for several reasons, including the fact that Einstein’s theory is empirically equivalent to its neo-Lorentzian competitor), and if Lorentz is also wrong about contraction in the direction of motion through the aether, then the most recent experimental evidence testing geocentrism confirms geocentrism. Now, I say all that without wanting to advocate for geocentrism. I think geocentrism is false. I’m just pointing out that if the Catholic Church did teach it, it wouldn’t be as intellectually unconscionable as people imagine.

Second, the Church is not moving away from Geocentrism because she has never officially taught geocentrism. I notice that you read the same statement I read as a list rather than a conjunction. Let’s look at it again: “… that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world.” In a conjunction, if any conjunct is false, the conjunction is false. In this conjunction, at least one of the conjuncts is necessarily false. Therefore, the conjunction itself is false. I read the condemned article as a conjunction, rather than a list. It is not necessary to read it as a condemnation of (between two and four) separate articles (indeed, it would be strange to read it that way given the logical connections between the some of the conjuncts).

Third, to the best of my knowledge the original statement against Galileo was drafted up sometime around 1615, and included the phrasing: “… foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages…” Following this, several Cardinals were able to get it overruled before it was published so it never officially came to light, and “A milder decree, which did not include the word “heresy”, was issued and Galileo was summoned before the Holy Office.” The statement to which you refer, however, is one about which there is still, to this day, controversy. As George Sim Johnston writes:

“There is a still unresolved controversy over whether
this document is genuine, or was forged and slipped
into the files by some unscrupulous curial official. At
Galileo’s request, Bellarmine gave him a certificate
which simply forbade him to “hold or defend” the
theory. When, sixteen years later, Galileo wrote his
famous Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, he
technically did not violate Bellarmine’s injunction.
But he did violate the command recorded in the
controversial minute, of which he was completely
unaware and which was used against him at the second
trial in 1633.”

So, for several reasons, no definitive case against the Church’s infallibility can be made from this one obscure controversy. In fact, it cannot even be established that the Church ever officially taught geocentrism. Don’t you think, if it did, that this would play a serious factor in the arguments of Catholic geocentrists like Robert Sungenis? I can’t find it now, but I’m sure that I’ve read Sungenis conceding that it isn’t an infallible teaching, though he clearly accepts that what the ordinary magisterium teaches is infallible.

No it was the 1633 decree that said “formally heretical”

 

[Tyrel]

Its in the document you quoted. The Church cannot prescribe prayers that contradict truth divine. So the babies go to heaven

So, for a long time the Church prayed also for the Jews (as a group). What do you infer from this? In the 1962 Missal it reads:

“Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness.” Read more at beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/2007/07/perfidious-jews-and-the-latin-mass.aspx#Q1BAL8DgyRIrew85.99

The Church has also prayed for heretics and schismatics.

The prayers of the church for the unbaptized infants would be out of place, wouldn’t they, if we knew those children to be saints? I mean, the Church never prays for the saints (at least, not those known to be saints), but rather prays to the saints (at least those known to be saints).

 

[thinkandmull]

The prayers for the children are what send them to heaven. Lastly, there is nothing wrong with praying for heretics or for the Jews (read Romans 11)

 

[Tyrel]

No it was the 1633 decree that said “formally heretical”

I fear that you may have responded without reading what I wrote carefully enough. Maybe the fault is mine, because I wasn’t clear enough? In any case, it was clearly called formally heretical in 1633 in the statement over which there is still disagreement about its authenticity. However, even in this statement the formal heresy was explicitly for heliocentrism, and not for the denial of geocentrism (the denial of geocentrism was considered contrary to the* religious assent *at the time, but not the assent of faith).

 

[Tyrel]

The prayers for the children are what send them to heaven. Lastly, there is nothing wrong with praying for heretics or for the Jews (read Romans 11)

The Church does not teach that we can know that those children are in heaven, that’s the point. To even say so is heretical.

 

[thinkandmull]

Its certainly not heretical. Where has the Church said this is a perpetually open question. Unbaptized infants are given into God’s hands and buried in CATHOLIC cemeteries

 

[Tyrel]

Being buried in a Catholic cemetery is no guarantee that the person is saved, otherwise everyone buried in a Catholic cemetery would be a canonized saint. The Church continues to treat the matter as an open question, having never pronounced on the issue even through a manifestation of the authority of the ordinary magisterium. No canon at any ecumenical council, not one iota of the catechism, not one official document from the Church (whether an encyclical, etc.), has ever settled the issue. It is strictly theologoumenon as much today as the question of the immaculate conception was in Thomas Aquinas’ day. To appeal to the fact that the Church prays for those unbaptized infants as a proof, a strict theological demonstration, that those infants must necessarily be in heaven, is just a mistake.