How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[bobzills]

Yes Bobzills, you are right Limbo is considered part of Hell:

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

Thank you.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Kaste,

The understand would be that the person would desire baptism, if he could reconcile the theological difference. The key is, the person is genuinely seeking the truth. And, if he finds the truth, he sincerely accepts it. The problem is he is deceived about the truth and is naturally repulsed. Therefore, he claims that he does not desire baptism in the Catholic Church - but only because he was deceived about exactly what the Catholic Church really is.

I think this type of person is extremely common. They are fed a bunch of untruths about the Catholic Church. Of course they should refuse baptism into any Church that worships a creature like Mary. What they don’t understand is that the CC doesn’t worship Mary. Nor should they subscribe to a cult that believes someone called the pope is impeccable. That’s not what the CC is or believes, there’s a difference between impeccable and infallible.

The many, many people who are in these types of situations really are more “Catholic” than they realize.

However, there is a great number of people who cling to their other denominations for reasons other than a sincere belief that it is true. They may like the “fellowship” in their current faith community, they may fear their family’s response, they may fear the embarrassment. There are all sorts of reasons they may use to avoid the Catholic Church. And they convince themselves that “it doesn’t really matter, as long as you accept Jesus…”

 

[DJim]

Kaste–

Sorry to say you are incorrect and the limbo of the fathers is NOT considered part of hell. You are wrong. Below is from the same Catholic Encyclopedia from which you quote:​

I. LIMBUS PATRUM
Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that, more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current Jewish belief in the time of Christ Whatever name may be used in apocryphal Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is

that their condition is one of happiness,
that it is temporary, and
that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established.
In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum. In Matthew 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet “with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven” (cf. Luke 8:29; 14:15), and in Matthew 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and Dives it is called “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22) and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Ephesians 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ “also descended first into the lower parts of the earth,” and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that “being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,” Christ went and “preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:18-20).

It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ’s visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were “in prison,” as St. Peter says; but, as Christ’s own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. And this, substantially, is all that Catholic tradition teaches regarding the limbus patrum.​

So, Kaste, if the limbo of the fathers is “distinct from Purgatory”, you can darn well bet it’s also distinct from hell.

When was the last time you heard that someone could be happy in hell?

Please acknowledge the error and correct your view.

DJim

PS: Bobzills–you’re welcome

 

[toaslan]

DJim,
Limbus Patrium is a part of hell. You are incorrect to deny this.

He is correct to deny this, and you are incorrect to deny this! See how great this dialogue goes!

Kaste, you do not define your terms. What do you mean by hell?

Regarding your misunderstanding of Thomistic theology, I will again show you Thomas Aquinas’ own words (underlined), speculating about the state of natural happiness the unbaptized infant may enjoy. (And always, Thomas’s speculations were submitted to the Church as to the teacher who would finally decide whether or not this or that speculation would be confirmed as true, which shows, among other things, that Thomas expected formal doctrine to develop…)

*As to the question, whether in addition to freedom from the pain of sense, unbaptized infants enjoy any positive happiness in the next world, theologians are not agreed, nor is there any pronouncement of the Church on the subject. Many, following St. Thomas (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3), declare that these infants are not saddened by the loss of the beatific vision, either because they have no knowledge of it, and hence are not sensible of their privation; or because, knowing it, their will is entirely conformed to God’s will and they are conscious that they have missed an undue privilege through no fault of their own. In addition to this freedom from regret at the loss of heaven, these infants may also enjoy some positive happiness. St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5) says: “Although unbaptized infants are separated from God as far as glory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely. Rather are they joined to Him by a participation of natural goods; and so they may even rejoice in Him by natural consideration and love,” Again (a. 2) he says: “They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divine goodness and in natural perfections.” *While the opinion, then, that unbaptized infants may enjoy a natural knowledge and love of God and rejoice in it, is perfectly tenable, it has not the certainty that would arise from a unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of ecclesiastical authority.

kaste:

I will not retract what I said about Aquinas damning infants.

And the reason you will not retract is again some unknown editor’s opinion of what the Angelic Doctor said–why is a third person’s word more authoritative than the word of the man himself? I have already given you here, as easy as it can get, an exact quote from Thomas’ own writings showing his true thought on the subject. It is dishonest to ignore this.

More of the same sort of “reasoning” follows. Your quote does not show that Thomas thought unbaptized babies went to hell, it shows him saying the same reasons hold for two possibilities–the reasons apply equally, NOT that the reasons show that anything is true. Do you not see the distinction?

Your edited sentence just doesn’t do what you wish it to do, which may mean you are reading not for sense but for ammunition:

"No reason can be given – so argued the Angelic Doctor – for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense).

So, if the reason is good for one, it is good for both–and that reason may be a bad reason!

continued

 

[tdgesq]

No Tdgesq,

I will not retract what I said about Aquinas damning infants.

I never said anything about whether or not Aquinas believed that unbaptized infants are damned. I have said numerous times now that you cannot compare infants with adults when it comes to baptism of desire or desire to become part of the Church because infants have no cognitive ability to desire anything. For those watching (since Kaste knows precisely what I’ve been arguing):

It is also unreasonable to compare the category of Jews and schismatics to the category of infants when we speak of the baptism of desire. Infants cannot desire baptism and to become part of the Church because they do not have the cognitive ability to do so, unless God supernaturally raises their faculties prior to death to make such a choice; a theory that I believe has little to no support in the sources of revelation available to us.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2469330&postcount=63

Again:

If you seriously cannot see why baptism of desire or desire to be joined to the Church is impossible for an infant outside of a supernatural act from God, then I can only gather that you are being purposefully obtuse. Let me reiterate: infants do not have the cognitive ability to desire anything - whether implicitly or explicitly. I can’t make it any clearer than this. It seems to me that you have a problem admitting when you are wrong. It is embarrassing for you to claim not to recognize this distinction.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2472615&postcount=80

"No reason can be given – so argued the Angelic Doctor – for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense)

And? Go into my user profile and look at the threads I’ve been involved with that deal with limbus infantium. You aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know. My point is: THIS DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND.

Eugene doesn’t have to define how one is “joined to the Church”

So now you admit that Eugene doesn’t define how a Jew or schismatic could be joined to the Church.

when every other previous Roman teaching never mentions anything but the very strict exclusivist interpretation: baptism, baptism of desire or blood. That is like asking St. Paul to clearly define “Son of God”. Every true Christian understood “Son of God” to mean God himself…that Christ was God. So St. Paul never goes into an indepth definition of what “Son of God” means. Eugene didn’t either because everyone understood this frightening doctrine of Hell as it was taught throughout the Medieval period in the West.

We shall see about whether there was such an exclusive interpretation. Incidentally, you unwittingly damage your position by bringing up the notion of the Incarnation and a clear definition of the “Son of God.” Some of the most profound heresies in the early Church - heresies that threatened to destroy the Church - came about as a result of a misunderstanding of the Incarnation. Many of these heresies still exist today. Do Monophysitism and Nestorianism ring a bell? The Church prevailed nonetheless. In any case, there are many early teachings about the notion of invincible ignorance and its relationship to being joined to the Church.

I accept. In fact I accept gladly, that was the original intent of my post here, afterall. Please don’t bother with Scripture, but keep to the Western Fathers and Magisterium. The Eastern Fathers are more open to the idea of apokatastasis, so please keep it within the Roman Church.

Let’s just be clear what it is you are accepting:

Do you want quotes from the Fathers and scripture that support this position? I’ll tell you what. If I provide these, then I want you to commit to reverse your position that Eugene didn’t allow for invincible ignorance in the salvation of Jews and schismatics.

So If I can find any western fathers (and I reserve the right to use eastern fathers who did not hold to apokatastasis) then you will no longer claim that Eugene couldn’t have allowed for invincible ignorance. Quotes forthcoming.

 

[toaslan]

And you also mention that by definition, invincible ignorance cannot apply to heretics and schismatics. So you do believe heretics and schismatics go to hell then? Or is there some other Post Eugene Caveat we can employ to allow for hope?

What is your definitinion of a heretic and a schismatic? I think you need to pay more attention to defining your terms. Yes, if you die outside of God’s friendship–if you die without His life in you–you go to hell, right! Catholics say, if you die in a state of mortal/deadly sin, you go to hell.

No, Bobzills, you are wrong, Limbo is not considered part of Hell–at least not Hell as understood by the man on the street–except by Kaste, who is not a good guide to things Catholic…

Eugene doesn’t have to define how one is “joined to the Church” when every other previous Roman teaching never mentions anything but the very strict exclusivist interpretation: baptism, baptism of desire or blood.

Maybe your objection is really to the Development of Doctrine, Kaste–you don’t think any formally promulated belief should ever again be restated? We believe, on the other hand, that in an organic, living body the truth unfolds and extends itself. It is stated anew, more fully or with changed emphases, as life goes on. Our Church is the living bride of Christ.

Eugene didn’t either because everyone understood this frightening doctrine of Hell as it was taught throughout the Medieval period in the West.

Yes, it is frightening to die in God’s enmity and exist eternally in pain separated from Him. This doctrine of Hell is taught today, and we all should be frightened.

 

[DJim]

Kaste wrote:

Limbus Patrium is a part of hell. You are incorrect to deny this.

“St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned”

I think you are confused about the Limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of infants–TWO separate theological opinions.

Also regarding your quote from Augustine, where is that from?

The Catholic Encyclopedia reference is: "(St. Aug., “Sermo 10us de sanctis”), which looks to me to contain a typo, so I’m not sure which sermon will contain the passage…

And you also mention that by definition, invincible ignorance cannot apply to heretics and schismatics. So you do believe heretics and schismatics go to hell then? Or is there some other Post Eugene Caveat we can employ to allow for hope?

With the Catholic Church, I believe that one who willfully and post-baptismally denies a truth of the faith and dies willfully unrepentant goes to hell. The same for one who commits schism willfully.

But, also with the Catholic Church, I understand that our “separated brothers and sisters” whom we call “Protestant” are generally not willful heretics or schismatics…

Eugene doesn’t have to define how one is “joined to the Church” when every other previous Roman teaching never mentions anything but the very strict exclusivist interpretation: baptism, baptism of desire or blood.

Kaste–I’ve already made it quite clear that heretics and schismatics are counted among the baptized! Having been joined to the Church, they break away. How will they be re-joined according to the Catholic faith? NOT by RE-baptism, but presumably by recanting and by the Sacrament of Penance. So your point doesn’t even make sense–a heretic and schismatic are, by definition already baptized.

So, obviously the Council of Florence (sigh–again, not Eugene) is NOT presuming that “joined to the Church” must mean baptism by water, desire, or blood!

Augustine clearly accepts that invincibly ignorant Jews can be saved (the Holy Innocents, and presumably the OT saints). Heretics and schismatics are, by definition, NOT “invincibly ignorant”.

I’ve shown that three of the four original categories mentioned in the Decree for the Copts do not conflict with modern Catholic teaching. What more could you possibly want? Must I drag up a “pagan” example to complete the set?

If so, I shall…

DJim

 

[gabriel777]

What we are dealing with here is a Church that is not admitting it changed its teachings. The Magisterium can mislead its flock. So even those who highly revere it, must still excercise their reason and make use of prayer.

Kaste

No Kaste,
The Magiserium can not mislead the flock as Catholics we have Christ’s Promise that this will **never **happen.
The fact that you don’t believe this, is not problematic for me. I say with those who have come before me… You have before you the doctrine of the catholic church. it is one doctrine a compleatness of Faith. Take away a part and you No longer have Catholic doctrine. accept it all or reject it.
We have done our job, with respect to you. We have shown you the Truth of the Catholic Church. The ball is In your court.

 

[bobzills]

No Kaste,
The Magiserium can not mislead the flock as Catholics we have Christ’s Promise that this will **never **happen.
.

Hasn’t the Church changed its teaching on the filioque and whether or not it should be in the creed?

 

[gabriel777]

You are right Kaste,

The Prospect of Hell is Frightening it is also quite real I assure you.
And yes there are truths that must be believed in order not to end up there. If it were not so, we wouldn’t need a Savior. And there is ONLY one way to that savior and that is **The Holy Catholic Church. **

 

[gabriel777]

Hasn’t the Church changed its teaching on the filioque and whether or not it should be in the creed?

No. It did not change its teaching. It defined it’s teaching.

Because error was begining to be taught by those who misunderstood.

 

[bobzills]

No. It did not change its teaching. It defined it’s teaching.

Because error was begining to be taught by those who misunderstood.

At first the teaching was that you were to say the creed without the filioque. then the teaching changed and said that the creed should be said with the filioque. However, now the Church says that you can say the creed either with or without the filioque.
Let’s review:

1. First the creed should be said without the filioque.
2. Secondly the creed should be said with the filioque.
3. The present teaching is that the creed may be said either way.
   Isn’t this a serious change in teaching?

 

[gabriel777]

At first the teaching was that you were to say the creed without the filioque. then the teaching changed and said that the creed should be said with the filioque. However, now the Church says that you can say the creed either with or without the filioque.
Let’s review:

1. First the creed should be said without the filioque.
2. Secondly the creed should be said with the filioque.
3. The present teaching is that the creed may be said either way.
   Isn’t this a serious change in teaching?

First,
this is not a change in doctrine but a change in the prayer of the fathful.

second,
The doctrine of the fililoque was held to be the authentic teaching of the magisterium.

Third ,
as I said this was done because error was being taught, that needed to be addressed.

 

[gabriel777]

IN ALL OF THE SITUATIONS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP.

The Magisterium has never Changed Catholic Doctrine but at times when Heresy presents itself the Magisterium rightly Defines doctrine already held by the church. So as to instruct the faithful so they will not fall into error.

If you study the history of the church you will understand that many heresies have cropped up over the ages. Each time the Magisterium has reiterated the orthodox teachings of her beliefs in order to strengthen our understanding of where the heretics have gone wrong. This, with the hope that the same heresy will not return in the future.

That said, we still see threads of the same heresies over and over again. Because some claim that these definitions of what was already the true doctrine of the church constitute a change in the doctrine itself, which is untrue.

 

[bobzills]

First,
this is not a change in doctrine but a change in the prayer of the fathful.

The teaching was declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And if you did not hold to that teaching, you were declared anathema.
Then the teaching was changed and it was declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

 

[gabriel777]

The teaching was declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And if you did not hold to that teaching, you were declared anathema.
Then the teaching was changed and it was declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

a couple quotes that speak to this
the first CCC
192 Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras: the creeds of the different apostolic and ancient Churches,8 e.g., the Quicumque, also called the Athanasian Creed;9 The professions of faith of certain Councils, such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons, Trent;10 or the symbols of certain popes, e.g., the Fides Damasi11 or the Credo of the People of God of Paul VI.12

193 None of the creeds from the different stages in the Church’s life can be considered superseded or irrelevant. They help us today to attain and deepen the faith of all times by means of the different summaries made of it

The Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch
(Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 343 and col. 164; and in Migne, Pat. Græc., Tom. LXXVII. [Cyrilli Opera, Tom. X.], col. 173. This is the letter which is often styled “the Ephesine Creed.”)
we will allow the defined Faith, the symbol of the Faith set forth by our holy Fathers who assembled some time ago at Nice, to be shaken by no one. Nor would we permit ourselves or others, to alter a single word of those set forth, or to add one syllable, remembering the saying:“Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set,” for it was not they who spoke but the Spirit himself of God and the Father, who proceeds also from him, and is not alien from the Son, according to his essence. And this the words of the holy initiators into mysteries confirm to us. For in the Acts of the Apostles it is written: “And after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; but the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.” And the divine Paul wrote: “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Along with those at the council of chalcedon I exclaim: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.

 

[gabriel777]

The church has always understood that the father is one with the son as the son is one with the father. Those who wrote the fililoque stated in thier own words that something cannot proceed from one and not the other.

shouldn’t this arguement be in a thread of its own?

 

[Nita]

The teaching was declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And if you did not hold to that teaching, you were declared anathema.
Then the teaching was changed and it was declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

This is not a change in the sense of contradicting a previous teaching.
To contradict the first, it would have had to say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father. Including “and from the Son” in no way contradicts the first teaching since it did not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.

Were I to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, I would still deserve to be declared anathema. The first teaching still holds, and is included in the second.

Nita

 

[gabriel777]

The point is missed again.
the creed is not the doctrine.
The Church expresses her Doctrine through the creed.

 

[gabriel777]

My statement stands.
The Church has ***never ***changed her Doctrine. She has changed the way she ***expresses ***it.

There are many ways to express the same TRUTH.