How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kaste
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mgrfin said:
I think you ought to read that article again.
Click to expand...
Yes.
"This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned…’
and
“Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty.”
So it was believed that unbaptised babies go to a place in hell and not to heaven. However, that teaching has been changed and now it is taught that we hope that they go to heaven.
 
Harsalter said:
What? When? Where?

Please…

This is one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum. Once, the church therorized that unbaptised babies went to limbo, but now the church just assumes unbaptised bies will have the full mercy of God. But if parents do not have their babies baptised, they will answer for this.
Click to expand...
It was once theorized that this limbo was a part of hell.
 
bobzills said:
So the teaching on this issue has changed.
Click to expand...
Changed? What kind of a teaching was it in the first place? Faced with a mother who has just lost her child, saying something that in some way consoles is the way this understanding of limbo developed. It was never a defined doctrine of the faith. It was one of those consoling doctrines that were passed on thru the ages.

If it makes you feel good to say this the Church’s teaching changed, there is plenty of available reading on the Internet which you should read before coming to that conclusion.

peace,
mgrfin
 
mgrfin said:
Changed? What kind of a teaching was it in the first place? Faced with a mother who has just lost her child, saying something that in some way consoles is the way this understanding of limbo developed. It was never a defined doctrine of the faith. It was one of those consoling doctrines that were passed on thru the ages.

If it makes you feel good to say this the Church’s teaching changed, there is plenty of available reading on the Internet which you should read before coming to that conclusion.

peace,
mgrfin
Click to expand...
I don;t see where it is reasonable for you to base an argument on limbo on my feelings.
It is completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion as to whether I feel good, whether I feel bad or whether I feel neutral. My feelings really have nothing whatsoever to do with what St. Augustine and the African Fathers taught. It is stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia that:
"This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned…’
 
bobzills said:
I don;t see where it is reasonable for you to base an argument on limbo on my feelings.
It is completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion as to whether I feel good, whether I feel bad or whether I feel neutral. My feelings really have nothing whatsoever to do with what St. Augustine and the African Fathers taught. It is stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia that:
"This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned…’
Click to expand...
St. Augustine was not infallible. St. Augustine held that such children would suffer some sort of positive pain, though he admitted that he did not know how or what, and was, as a rule careful to add that it would be very kind and light, and easy to bear. The Greek fathers were inclined to the view that these children suffer nothing except the pain of loss or deprivation of the beatific vision. Maybe that is how come we arrived at saying that the state of unbaptised children in the next world is one of peace and natural hapiness.

What, by the way, does your religion teach regarding the fate of children who die without baptism? Do they go to real hell, in your teaching?

peace
mgrfin
 
Once, the church** theorized **that unbaptised babies went to limbo, but now the church just assumes unbaptised babies will have the full mercy of God.
Click to expand...
bobzills said:
So the teaching on this issue has changed.
Click to expand...
No it was theory before but the church assumes now.
It was never the teaching of the Church.
Not everything is dogma or doctrine. It still hasn’t been decided how many angels fit on the head of a pin. I don’t think it will ever be decided. Why ? Angels are spirits. Pins are material.
 
richwmiller said:
It was never the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Really? What about the teaching of Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”
Or the teaching of the other popes:
Pope John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolore, Nov. 13. 1323: “It (The Holy Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or with **only original sin **descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.”
Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
 
richwmiller said:
No it was theory before but the church assumes now.
It was never the teaching of the Church.
Not everything is dogma or doctrine. It still hasn’t been decided how many angels fit on the head of a pin. I don’t think it will ever be decided. Why ? Angels are spirits. Pins are material.
Click to expand...
I think it is splitting hairs to say that it was ‘theory’. It was ‘doctrine’, but the question is what level of belief do we have to assign to it. It certainly was not defined (De fide definita, e.g.).
It probably didn’t arrive at the level of ‘common teaching of the church’. It was not a universal teaching, meaning there was no consensus of the church on this, and it is still open to reasonable discussion and search.

peace,
mgrfin
 
mgrfin said:
St. Augustine was not infallible. St. Augustine held that such children would suffer some sort of positive pain, though he admitted that he did not know how or what, and was, as a rule careful to add that it would be very kind and light, and easy to bear. The Greek fathers were inclined to the view that these children suffer nothing except the pain of loss or deprivation of the beatific vision. Maybe that is how come we arrived at saying that the state of unbaptised children in the next world is one of peace and natural hapiness.

What, by the way, does your religion teach regarding the fate of children who die without baptism? Do they go to real hell, in your teaching?

peace
mgrfin
Click to expand...
It is not only St. Augustine. See post #346.
 
40.png
bobzills:
The dogma of faith is clearly contained in Christ’s words to Nicodemus: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3,5)
I prefer to hold that unbaptised children are in the state of true peace and natural happiness.

peace,
mgrfin
 
mgrfin said:
The dogma of faith is clearly contained in Christ’s words to Nicodemus: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3,5)
I prefer to hold that unbaptised children are in the state of true peace and natural happiness.

peace,
mgrfin
Click to expand...
How can anyone have true peace by being deprived of the vision of God. It was the teaching of the Church until recently that unbaptised babies are in a place in hell, called limbo, where they are deprived of the beatific vision.
 
richwmiller said:
really
christianpost.com/article/20051209/22492_Roman_Catholic_Church_Considers_Abolishing_Limbo_Theory.htm
and also
tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/limbo.htm
These are not official but should lead you to the official documents
Click to expand...
The second link seems to contradict your thesis since it says that: “Pius VI defended the right of Catholic schools to teach the Limbo theory.” And the references that I gave show that limbo was a teaching of the Church until recently.
 
bobzills said:
How can anyone have true peace by being deprived of the vision of God. It was the teaching of the Church until recently that unbaptised babies are in a place in hell, called limbo, where they are deprived of the beatific vision.
Click to expand...
I’m spinning my wheels on this, and I’ll be the first to admit it.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The Holy See has a long treatise on this subject. It may be worth reading if you are really interested in the Church’s current position on Limbo, and the fate of the unbaptised child.

I should have gone there first. My apologies.

peace,
mgrfin
 
bobzills said:
The second link seems to contradict your thesis since it says that: “Pius VI defended the right of Catholic schools to teach the Limbo theory.” And the references that I gave show that limbo was a teaching of the Church until recently.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you are going on this.

As a Catholic you are trying to prove that the Church was in error, that it made a doctrinal mistake, - that the Church of Christ is NOT infallible - or, are you taking the current position that there is really no defined teaching, or that that the defined teaching is that there is hope that these children are in the end saved, how we just don’t know???

peace,
mgrfin
 
bobzills said:
The second link seems to contradict your thesis since it says that: “Pius VI defended the right of Catholic schools to teach the Limbo theory.” And the references that I gave show that limbo was a teaching of the Church until recently.
Click to expand...
First, You are right everyone including the last few popes are wrong.
Second, we are all wrong and you alone in the world know how to read Catholic documents. Congratulations.
Oh dear! I smell sarcasm.

Now let’s try again. You are right that it seems to contradict my thesis. Wow. I wrote a thesis. Now you may call me doctor.

Yes it seems to if you don’t read the whole thing. For teachers to teach theory and for the church to teach doctrine are not the same thing. Notice it says Limbo theory not Limbo doctrine.
Your references mean nothing. Most of them don’t even mention limbo. You read it wrong.
What is your point? Are you asking us to teach you how to read?
 
richwmiller said:
First, You are right everyone including the last few popes are wrong.
Second, we are all wrong and you alone in the world know how to read Catholic documents. Congratulations.
Oh dear! I smell sarcasm.

Now let’s try again. You are right that it seems to contradict my thesis. Wow. I wrote a thesis. Now you may call me doctor.

Yes it seems to if you don’t read the whole thing. For teachers to teach theory and for the church to teach doctrine are not the same thing. Notice it says Limbo theory not Limbo doctrine.
Your references mean nothing. Most of them don’t even mention limbo. You read it wrong.
What is your point? Are you asking us to teach you how to read?
Click to expand...
I don’t buy this as an answer to post #346 and to what St. Augustine has said. The teaching on limbo has had a long tradition in the Church. That is my point.
 
bobzills said:
I don’t buy this as an answer to post #346 and to what St. Augustine has said. The teaching on limbo has had a long tradition in the Church. That is my point.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read post #346. and don’t plan on it.
As far as I am concerned this topic is in limbo. It isn’t going anywhere
Yes it does have along history as theory never as doctrine and it was almost revoked completely over 500 years ago but that council [Florence] was busy with other problems. Take it up with Pope Benedict and the curia. Look up the topic. He had a commission investigate it this past April 2007.
 
bobzills said:
I don’t buy this as an answer to post #346 and to what St. Augustine has said. The teaching on limbo has had a long tradition in the Church. That is my point.
Click to expand...
St Augustine is not infallible. He is one of many. Yes he is important but only one voice.
I tend to believe the present pope over St Augustine anyways.
Why? The present pope has more tradition behind him and more time for the church to ponder this. He is also a pope. He also happens to be one of the best theologians around. He spent 25 years as the head of CDF.
one on one, I pick Benedict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top