Is Limbo a Capital 'T' Tradition & de fide?

[MTD]

But Gorman, guess what else is theological speculation? Belief in Limbo. There is no revealed truth on the matter, we are free to have differing opinions here.

First, please try to remember that we don’t advocate limbo so much because we believe it is supposedly not theological speculation but because the underlying doctrines are not theological speculation, and those underlying doctrines do not permit one to believe unbaptized infants make it to heaven.

Second, divinely revealed truth is not the only the truth, is it? Not everything we know as true has been divinely revealed, has it? Otherwise I couldn’t know you were a real person because it hasn’t been revealed by God to me; the only way I know it is by observations and judgments based on reason and my past experiences, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. So this proves that there are two classes of truth: revealed truth and rational truth.

The theories recognize the truth of Original Sin and necessity of baptism for salvation, while they also recognize that God is not bound by the Sacraments, that He can choose to impart grace others, and that baptism by blood or desire are supernatural means, but just as valid as baptism by water. They are fully in line with acceptable theological speculation on the matter.

Yes, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are doctrines of the Church. But the doctrines of the Church in regards to these extra-sacramental means of grace are not at all in line with your understanding of them. I’ll try to show true Church teaching on them later.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

This is an article from Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin. In the article he mentions that actually for centuries, (but obviously especially in more recent times) Catholic theologians have been speculating that these individuals could be baptised by blood or by desire.

I thought Gorman already pointed out in post #152 that Jimmy Akin has his info wrong.

I also know that Mother Angelica holds the belief that aborted babies are baptised by blood.

Aborted babies are not baptized by blood because baptism of blood is none other than martyrdom, and martyrdom is death for the Faith. These aborted babies are not murdered for the Faith but from other motives. And you know that.

Okay, so here is my final and most important souce. It is the actual ITC document recently released, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI. I highly suggest reading it, and I found it an interesting and excellent read. It mentions the possibility for all four of the theories I have talked about.

Why would anyone trust these theological commissions to get their doctrines correct when the theological commission before Humanae Vitae supported artificial birth control, which was later condemned in Humanae Vitae as being gravely contrary to the law of God? So much for their expertise and trustworthiness…

Maria

 

[MTD]

Here are some sources on baptism of desire. They show that baptism of desire essentially consists in a desire on the part of the person being baptized.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church:
Summa Theologica:

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of ‘faith that worketh by charity,’ whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.

Summa Theologica:

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church:
Moral Theology:

Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

St. Pius X, Pope:
Catechism of St. Pius X:

Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Other:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. …] Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead:

159 Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized–for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.

Maria

 

[MTD]

And here are some sources on baptism of blood. They show that baptism of blood is none other than martyrdom for the sake of Christ:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church:
Summa Theologica:

A man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): “These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Summa Theologica:

As stated above (11), the shedding of blood for Christ’s sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ’s Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: “Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church:
Moral Theology:

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.*

St. Pius X, Pope:
Catechism of St. Pius X:

Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood,

or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Other:
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) by Mgr. J. H. Hervé:

Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr

. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead:

160 Q. What is baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ

.

Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. …] Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason–say political.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ

.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Although I already know you hold the necessity of baptism for salvation, I’m quoting these anyway to reinforce my argument:

Council of Trent:
Decree on Justification:

In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of the sons” (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism:

If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.

Council of Florence:
Decree for the Greeks:

The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

John XXII, Pope:

(The 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.

Maria

 

[MTD]

And here are some sources that touch upon limbo itself or infants who die without baptism:

Synod of Pistoia, Constitution Auctorem Fidei:
Baptism:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of 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,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Council of Florence:
A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites:

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking.

Pius XII, Pope:
Address to Italian Midwives:

If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.

Other:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

Maria

 

[kellyanne]

MTD, I see you are back again, and you are supplying voluminous doctrinal texts (unasked) to prove your private belief. Did you think these proofs were going to change FTS’s mind or anyone else’s who adheres to the hope of God’s mercy? You are taking church teaching out of context once again, and particularly with respect to your last reference with Pope John XXIII’s document which does not state what you claimed it does. Rather it teaches the opposite:

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages,** never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium**, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

It is very unfortunate that some who read these volumes of yours might just put faith in them, rather than in the current teaching of the Church. I pray you would consider the harm you are doing by misrepresenting the mind of the church.

 

[gorman64]

MTD, I see you are back again, and you are supplying voluminous doctrinal texts (unasked) to prove your private belief. Did you think these proofs were going to change FTS’s mind or anyone else’s who adheres to the hope of God’s mercy? You are taking church teaching out of context once again, and particularly with respect to your last reference with Pope John XXIII’s document which does not state what you claimed it does. Rather it teaches the opposite:

Dear kellyanne,

I believe the quote was from John XXII not John XXIII. And also, the ITC report you quoted was not commissioned under John XXIII anyway…so I think you’ve really gotten things confused here.

Furthermore, you impugn the sources which are definitely part of teaching of the Church. The prior teaching of the Popes and Councils are the context.

So…do you believe that Pope John XXII (twenty second) was wrong?

Gorman

 

[MTD]

MTD, I see you are back again, and you are supplying voluminous doctrinal texts (unasked) to prove your private belief.

I did intend not to post on this thread, but I could not hold off any longer in conscience.

Did you think these proofs were going to change FTS’s mind or anyone else’s who adheres to the hope of God’s mercy?

I do not post so much to change someone’s mind as to defend the truth. The presentation of the truth of itself never led someone to change his mind; any change to accept the truth is ultimately due to the grace of God, which grace is obtained through prayer and sacrifice.

You are taking church teaching out of context once again, and particularly with respect to your last reference with Pope John XXIII’s document which does not state what you claimed it does.

I’m a little confused here. I didn’t quote John XXIII; I quoted John XXII. John XXII reigned from 1316-1334; he is obviously not the same person as John XXIII. And I did not quote the document you linked to either.

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium

First, I would note that I have never proposed on this thread or any other that limbo is anything but theological opinion. However, the reason limbo is so important is because the underlying doctrines of Original Sin, baptism, and salvation say that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. So we are faced with a choice: assign the unbaptized infants to the hell of the damned with St. Augustine, or assign them to limbo with St. Thomas Aquinas. The latter opinion has been greatly favored by the Church.

Second, it is important to remember that the teachings of the Church are not divided only between dogmas and opinions. There are various levels of doctrine which bind under pain of mortal sin: 1) of divine and catholic faith, 2) of divine faith, 3) proximate to faith, 4) of ecclesiastical faith, and 5) theologically certain. Although to deny doctrines in the first category is heresy, to deny the doctrines in the other categories is still mortally sinful even if not strictly heretical. Limbo itself does not belong in one of these categories, but the doctrine that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven does.

Third, why put your trust in a theological commission to gets its doctrines right on this issue when a similar theological commission was so seriously wrong only 40 years ago under Pope Paul VI? Remember how that commission thought artificial birth control was okay? And how Humanae Vitae condemned artificial birth control as gravely sinful? And this theological commission that approved artificial birth control did so because it repudiated past documents from the Holy See condemning any form of artificial birth control. See what havoc is wrought when a “theological commission” ignores doctrines of the Church?

It is very unfortunate that some who read these volumes of yours might just put faith in them, rather than in the current teaching of the Church.

Current teaching of the Church can never be in contradiction to past certain teaching of the Church. If a current teaching is in contradiction to past certain teaching, it is not the teaching of the Church.

Maria

 

[kellyanne]

Gorman, it seems that MTD mixed the popes up, for although she may have meant a document from John XX-II, instead of John XX-III, she gave the title of the document, which is the one I quoted from. If you read it, there is nothing therein that even closely resembles what she stated is in “Nequaquam Sine Dolore.” [Edit: I see what happened] Obviously, it was providential for me to link to this, even if it was not the intended document! I typed the document name in the search engine at the Vatican website, and this one came up. Praise be to God!

The prior teaching of the Popes and Councils are the context.

This is where you both err, for it is always the most current teaching of the Church which is to be followed, for the Holy Spirit continues to bring light to areas that were not clearly defined. Read again:

Even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

As such, according to the above document, it is still “theological hypothesis,” but leans toward God’s Divine mercy! I do not put my faith in people who twist the Church’s teachings to fit their understanding, and then propose to the rest of us what we should therefore believe. [The solemn teaching according to someone’s private interpretation of the document.]

This is not debatable any longer, for I see all I need to see with John XX-III’s teaching. You guys can post as many pages as you like in order to try and win the reader over to your viewpoint, but my faith is in the Church and her present teachings.

EDIT:

MTD, you speak of a commission being wrong, but when a pope writes the encyclical, such as John XXIII did, it overrules and puts to rest any of the commission’s findings; and as the encyclical Humanae Vitae also overruled previous thought.

No dice. Not convinced. Why do you put faith in one encyclical or Motu Proprio, but not the one of John XXIII? Pick and choose theology?

 

[gorman64]

MTD:

FTS:

Okay, so here is my final and most important souce. It is the actual ITC document recently released, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI. I highly suggest reading it, and I found it an interesting and excellent read. It mentions the possibility for all four of the theories I have talked about.

Why would anyone trust these theological commissions to get their doctrines correct when the theological commission before Humanae Vitae supported artificial birth control, which was later condemned in Humanae Vitae as being gravely contrary to the law of God? So much for their expertise and trustworthiness…

I would also point out that artificial birth control was condemned well before the theological commission was formed by Paul VI. Both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930. These condemnations from Casti Connubii are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244.

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

And the condemnation (for the same reasons) of artificial insemination by Pius XII are contained in Denzinger 2303 (AAS 41 (1949), 559f.):

"Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union “in one flesh”.

That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.”

So, Pius XII had already addressed, in 1949, even the issue of artificial insemination in marriage. The reason given for the rejection of artificial insemination would apply to in vitro, and cloning or any other measure that separated the conjugal act from its natural effect (or produces the natural effect without the normal and natural conjugal act).

It seems these “theological commissions” of late don’t really care what the established Teaching of the Church is in these matters.

How could the the theological commission before Humanae Vitae have supported artificial birth control when artifical birth control was already condemned well before the formation of the commission?

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

kellyanne:

Gorman, it seems that MTD mixed the popes up, for although she may have meant a document from John XX-II, instead of John XX-III, she gave the title of the document, which is the one I quoted from. If you read it, there is nothing therein that even closely resembles what she stated is in “Nequaquam Sine Dolore.” [Edit: I see what happened] Obviously, it was providential for me to link to this, even if it was not the intended document! I typed the document name in the search engine at the Vatican website, and this one came up. Praise be to God!

Kellyanne:

I don’t follow you here. Nequaquam Sine Dolore is from Pope John XXII, November 21, 1321…it says exactly what was quoted.

This is where you both err, for it is always the most current teaching of the Church which is to be followed, for the Holy Spirit continues to bring light to areas that were not clearly defined. Read again:

As such, according to the above document, it is still “theological hypothesis,” but leans toward God’s Divine mercy! ** I do not put my faith in people who twist the Church’s teachings to fit their understanding**, and then propose to the rest of us what we should therefore believe. [The solemn teaching according to someone’s private interpretation of the document.]

That’s exactly what the theological commission did…twist the Church’s teachings to fit their understanding.

This is not debatable any longer, for I see all I need to see with John XX-III’s teaching.

What did John XXIII teach? I think you’re confused again. What you quoted was from the ITC report.

You guys can post as many pages as you like in order to try and win the reader over to your viewpoint, but my faith is in the Church and her present teachings.

It’s the teaching of the Church.

MTD, you speak of a commission being wrong, but when a pope writes the encyclical, such as John XXIII did, it overrules and puts to rest any of the commission’s findings; and as the encyclical Humanae Vitae also overruled previous thought.

Kellyanne, the point was that the commission was wrong…they got it wrong…so why trust them at all. You’re the one quoting these commission reports.

No dice. Not convinced. Why do you put faith in one encyclical or Motu Proprio, but not the one of John XXIII? Pick and choose theology?

This is not really about you. I’m not trying to convince you of anything…merely discredit you so no one will listen to a word you say…it’s an act of charity towards those who might be listening to you.

Gorman

 

[kellyanne]

That’s fine, Gorman … discredit me if you will, but it is still the Church’s current teaching and understanding through its lawful magisterium. To label them wrong is arrogant sophistry. [Edited by Moderator]

Coincidentally, I just posted this link on another forum this morning.

Watch out for a desire commonly seen in our Church today; it is to get the people against each other. Again, looking at the crisis in the Church, look back and see how much work was put together to get the people against their bishops and priests. Look at how much effort was put into leading people to believe the Bishops had lost their moral voice. Further, look at how little effort was spent in the calling all Catholics closer to Christ through repentance. Do not think these actions were not manifestations of the forces of evil. **The desire was to get people to reject their leaders. **
stobie.home.sprynet.com/religion/tactics-enemy.htm#EObj

As for pitting us against each other, who really does it benefit to know for certain whether or not unbaptized babies are in heaven? Only those who have lost them are are sensitive to God’s mercy in that regard. It really is not an issue with me, except when some traditionalists [Edited by Moderator] insist on quoting medieval documents in peference for current teachings, as though the magisterium of today is off base and heretical. [Edited by Moderator]

My time here is done.

 

[ncjohn]

I’ve been watching this thread now for a while, with the numerous attempts to proof-text to show Limbo to be a doctrinal or dogmatic teaching of the Church.

Since the Church has specifically stated on numerous occasions though that it has never been such, I have to wonder what the agenda is of those who continue to try to interpret old documents to say that it is. The only conclusion that I can come up with is that some here just reject the Church’s teaching for whatever reason, perhaps even being part of those who don’t believe we even have a valid Pope, and believe that the Church is teaching error.

I have no problem with them believing that if that is what they believe, as we are each entitled to our opinions, but it would be nice if they would just come out and be honest that they just believe the Church is wrong rather than trying to imply that people are just “misunderstanding” what the Church is saying, and that it isn’t really teaching what it specifically says it is teaching.

Maybe some here will in fact be misled and convinced. If so, I tend to think that God in His mercy will understand that we do the best we can with what we have to work with. I just personally find it sad that some feel such a driving need to create a wedge over what the Church itself states to be theological speculation.

Debating whether Baptism is necessary is one thing. Debating, as if certainty existed, how God is going to treat those who had no opportunity for baptism, does in fact seem presumptuous at the very least.

I guess we’ll all get to find out exactly how different God’s ways are from our ways eventually. I tend to opine that an all merciful God is wise and just enough to figure out how to handle those innocents.

Peace,

 

[gorman64]

I’ve been watching this thread now for a while, with the numerous attempts to proof-text to show Limbo to be a doctrinal or dogmatic teaching of the Church.

If you have a specific issue with one of these “proof-texts” then bring it forward. Before you do this, however, please define what you mean by “doctrinal or dogmatic teaching of the Church”.

Since the Church has specifically stated on numerous occasions though that it has never been such, I have to wonder what the agenda is of those who continue to try to interpret old documents to say that it is.

Specifically stated what has never been such? Again, it is difficult to know what you mean here without some definitions of these terms. Be more specific.

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that some here just reject the Church’s teaching for whatever reason, perhaps even being part of those who don’t believe we even have a valid Pope, and believe that the Church is teaching error.

The Church can never teach error in Faith and Morals…a few here seem to think the Church was in error…and the error has now been corrected.

I have no problem with them believing that if that is what they believe, as we are each entitled to our opinions, but it would be nice if they would just come out and be honest that they just believe the Church is wrong rather than trying to imply that people are just “misunderstanding” what the Church is saying, and that it isn’t really teaching what it specifically says it is teaching.

That’s fine John, but we can’t have an opinion on certain or de fide doctrine…our assent is required.

Maybe some here will in fact be misled and convinced. If so, I tend to think that God in His mercy will understand that we do the best we can with what we have to work with. I just personally find it sad that some feel such a driving need to create a wedge over what the Church itself states to be theological speculation.

It’s not theological speculation. It may be the result of speculative theology…but certain and de fide doctrines are not speculations. The denial of certain doctrine (not de fide) is at a minimum a mortal sin. I don’t place that censure on certain doctrines…the Church does. The theologians classify these doctrines and apply the censures under the direction of the Church.

Debating whether Baptism is necessary is one thing.

We may not debate whether baptism is necessary…we look to the teaching of the Church and her approved theologians and we accept their teaching. We give our assent as to how baptism is required and what extrasacramental forms exist and how they are applicable.

For example, baptism of desire is classified by St. Alphonsus as de fide. It’s not solemnly defined but it is classified by a doctor of the Church as de fide…you must accept it…there is no debating it…but you’ll find those denying baptism of desire…Why? Because they don’t accept the teaching of the Church through the morally unanimous teaching of the theologians.

Debating, as if certainty existed, how God is going to treat those who had no opportunity for baptism, does in fact seem presumptuous at the very least.

We’re not debating this, we are presenting the teaching of the Church with respect to the doctrines that underlie the issue of limbo. What you are saying is there is no certainty except in solemnly defined Dogmas . You are wrong.

I guess we’ll all get to find out exactly how different God’s ways are from our ways eventually. I tend to opine that an all merciful God is wise and just enough to figure out how to handle those innocents.

The Church teaches us how they will be handled….and I accept that teaching.

Gorman

P.S.

One more thing…

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that some here just reject the Church’s teaching for whatever reason, perhaps even being part of those who don’t believe we even have a valid Pope, and believe that the Church is teaching error.

For whatever reason? Maybe you haven’t been paying attention…but there are plenty of reasons and they been soundly beaten to death here…more than once.

I am a sedevacantist. I am also a sincere Catholic who seeks to assist others in understanding the teaching of the Church. There are others who seek to do this very same thing…and they are not sedevacantists…so maybe you could relax a little and not be so afraid of the truth. I love Holy Mother Church because I love truth…and She alone possesses that truth…not just rational or natural truths…but supernatural truth. You are quite wrong if you think I am making the case or saying that the Church is teaching error. I am not. I am offended by that in a way that you will likely never understand.

 

[cor]

I am a sedevacantist. I am also a sincere Catholic who seeks to assist others in understanding the teaching of the Church. There are others who seek to do this very same thing…and they are not sedevacantists…so maybe you could relax a little and not be so afraid of the truth. I love Holy Mother Church because I love truth…and She alone possesses that truth…not just rational or natural truths…but supernatural truth. You are quite wrong if you think I am making the case or saying that the Church is teaching error. I am not. I am offended by that in a way that you will likely never understand.

gorman, I’m going to start a thread about sedevacantism. I hope you will give your thoughts on it. God bless you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=153323

 

[Grace_Angel]

You are very welcome, and thank you for your kind words. Some Catholics mistakenly believe Limbo is required belief, when that is entirely inaccurate. We can believe in it, but it is just as acceptable to belief that these individuals enter into God’s Heavenly Kingdom, in agreement with Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, many Catholic theologians, and many Catholic lay people. I do believe very strongly in my personal opinion that these individuals are miraculously and supernaturally baptised by desire, and that God in His infinite mercy and love welcomes them into Heaven with open arms. I have no doubt in my mind that your three blessed children are in perfect bliss and happiness, “living in the Lord” right now with the Almighty God who loves them so very much. I bet they cannot wait until the day their mommy can greet them in Heaven and hold them close. God Bless you and your family!

Thank you for your kind words FTS,
two of the children are there through my own sin and one by natural causes and whilst I know I am forgiven by my children and the Lord, I long with an eternal desire to hold them, and caress them and tell them how much I have regretted and loved them and missed them and have never spent a day without thinking about them, and it is because of them that I do the work that I do. It is as a memorial to them.
GraceAngel.

 

[Rykell]

Gorman64:

I am a sedevacantist. I am also a sincere Catholic who seeks to assist others in understanding the teaching of the Church.

I understand the basis for your posts more clearly now, though I should have guessed all along where you were coming from.

Erroneous Concepts of Tradition

“But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magesterium of the Church possessed by the Bishops of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ Himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church —JPII, 1988”

We need to trust the Church as our Mother and we need to listen with docility to the sound teaching given us by our Holy Father and the Bishops in union with him. The crisis through which the Church is passing will not be solved by rebellion. Of course, it is easy to complain that the teaching is often not translated into action. I concede, but let us be clear that the Pope is not teaching us false doctrine and that the Lord will not allow his Church to lapse into error. Those who contest papal and magisterial teaching are following a very dangerous course.

… but I say this: woe to those who misrepresent his doctrine and undermine the faith of others (cf. Mk. 9:42). The burden of proof rests entirely upon them.

By Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Rome

 

[ncjohn]

I am a sedevacantist. I am also a sincere Catholic who seeks to assist others in understanding the teaching of the Church.

Thank you for your honesty here Gorman. I have nothing but the greatest respect for your devotion, and for your perseverence in trying to bring to others the truth as you understand it, and I am sure that God blesses you for doing so.

I’m sure you understand equally though that those of us who believe that we do have a valid Pope are then bound to acceptance of the teachings of the Pope and the Magisterium under the conditions for which they are considered valid by either of us. And that as such we do not have the option of discarding those teachings in favor of the interpretations of others who are not in communion with that belief.

As a sedevacantist, in some areas your understanding of the Truth will be at odds with what we understand the Church to be and to teach. The only thing that I was asking is that those who are knowingly at odds not attempt to mislead people into believing that the Church as recognized after Vatican II is teaching the same things you propose. So again, I thank you for your honesty so people can take things in context and decide which direction they are called to.

Peace to you, and may we all continue to do our best to listen for the Truth of our Living God.

 

[MTD]

Rykell and ncjohn,

Before you jump to conclusions, however, please note that I am not a sedevacantist. Indeed, I’m not even a traditionalist, properly speaking, for I regularly attend the Novus Ordo Mass.

So it would be very well to consider those posts on their objective merits rather than on the basis of who posted them.

Maria

 

[Rykell]

Thanks, MTD, for clarifying that.

As always, we have the obligation to listen to the Church of today, which brings the discussion back to circular arguments wherein you cling rather notably to past teachings in order to dismiss the present ones. It is your opinion that you have been expressing in order to interpret these older documents, but I don’t see any credentials that entitle you to teach it in opposition to the Church’s position here and now.

In response to this sad lack of sound ecclesiology, of confidence in the providence of God and of filial piety, I would like to quote the late Cardinal de Lubac once again:
The Church which we call our Mother is not some ideal and unreal Church but this hierarchical Church herself; not the Church as we might dream her but the Church as she exists in fact, here and now. Thus the obedience which we pledge her in the persons of those who rule her cannot be anything else but a filial obedience. … And every true Catholic will have a feeling of tender piety towards her. He will love to call her “mother” – the title that sprang from the hearts of her first children, as the texts of Christian antiquity bear witness on so many occasions. He will say with St. Cyprian and St. Augustine: “He who has not the Church for mother cannot have God for Father”[22]

tcrnews2.com/gengen3.html