Is there a Limbo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_Army
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VERBUM CARO quoting Trent: ***Look at this quote from Trent:
***CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God. . . let him be anathema. ***
I I suspect that it is you who is dragging Canons out of context, my friend.

I don’t deny this: LOT’S of people who are damnable because they are in a state of mortal sin – “before Justification,” in other words – perform good works with the help of God’s grace.

I myself have performed good works while being in a state of mortal sin.

**Haven’t you?

**
 
Verbum Caro:
BibleReader,
I assure you that I will attempt (with the help of God’s grace) to conform my mind and heart to this proposition, if, in fact it is as you say.

I’m just not sure, at this time, that you are accurately stating the teaching of the Church, or that I am properly understanding your statement. I will continue investigating it. Care to join me?

Thanks,
VC
Click to expand...
I try to proceed with humility – which of course doesn’t mean NOT stating the Church’s position as I see it. So, of course I will discuss.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
****The problem is the terms “morally good.” Man WILL NOT FORM A MORALLY GOOD INTENT WITHOUT THE IMPACT OF THE GRACE OF THE CROSS.

He might, for instance, perform what might be characterized as a “good” act accidentally – for instance, drive his car into the middle of a multi-billion dollar illegal drug transaction occurring in the middle of the street, thus accidentally averting the transaction, so that the illegal drugs are still available to be seized and destroyed by authorities when the wholesaler is arrested. But, in such a case, it’s not a “good” act per se – there was no good intent. It was an accident.

He might similarly accidentally form an intent to do something that appears morally good, but isn’t. For example, a politician decides to hug someone on TV to get votes, period.

But, I guarantee you that in every single case, in the history of the world, where there was morally good intent, God’s grace, accepted by the person with the intent, is an inevitable part of the process of forming the intent.

You must believe this, as a Catholic.
Click to expand...
BibleReader,

It appears to me that you are not adequately distinguishing between natural moral acts and supernatural moral acts, between the natural and supernatural orders. It is clear to me that without grace there is no supernatural meritorious act possible. That is your correct position. I believe, however, that you go to far when you say that you cannot have a morally good act (good moral object + good intent + free will action) without grace. Your hypotheticals involve someone without morally good intent. I say that someone with morally good intent can choose to do a morally good act without grace.

Fr. Hardon composed an extensive treatment on GRACE. Here is a quote from a site that reproduces part of that treatment:

**
**

CONDEMNATION OF THE ERRORS OF PASQUIER QUESNEL, 1713

The theological errors of Quesnel (1634-1719) are fundamentally only a synthesis of the systems of deBay and Jansen. His essential theses are based on a confusion between the natural and supernatural orders. The dogmatic constitution Unigenitus, September 8, 1713, in which the errors of Quesnel were condemned, was confirmed by Clement XI (1700-1921) himself in a subsequent bull, Pastoralis officii, August 28, 1718, against those who had not accepted it.

ERRORS CONCERNING THE NECESSITY OF GRACE

  1. *](1). What is left in the soul that has lost God and his except sin and its effects, proud poverty, barren need, that is, the general inability to work, to pray, or to do any good work?
    *](38). Without the grace of the Savior the sinner is free for nothing but evil.
    *](39). The will that is not prepared by grace has no light except to go astray, no passion except for self-destruction, no strength except to wound itself, is capable of all evil and incapable of any good.
    *](40). Without grace we cannot love anything except to our condemnation.
    *](41). All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even among heathen philosophers, can come from God alone; and without grace such knowledge breeds only presumption, vanity, and opposition to God himself instead of adoration, gratitude and love.
    *](59). The prayer of the wicked is new sin, and what God grants them is a new judgment against them.

    Read over those 6 propositions that the Church has pointed to as error. Fr. Hardon explains in the beginning that Quesnel’s main problem was his confusion between the natural and supernatural orders.

    [CONT]
 
[CONT]

Further on, Fr. Hardon reproduces the folowing from VATICAN I.
Hence it follows that the so-called good life, in which the Commandments of God are somehow observed (at least as regards the substance of the words) is far different from the justice and sanctity which lead the one who does these works to the kingdom of heaven. For there is in nature the power for a rational soul to think and do lawful things and this is not blameworthy, but justly and rightly praised. Nevertheless, since these things are done without faith and without grace, none of them has any connection with the godliness that brings a man to eternal life. For what is true of the life of the blessed, namely, that since it is above nature it is a gratuitous gift of God’s mercy, is also true of the disposition for that life. Natural powers are not sufficient for any salutary act either in the just to increase their justice or in sinners to dispose them for justification. As our Lord says: “Without me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). And the Apostle confirms it: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything, as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God” (II Cor. 3:5). Therefore, it is most truly said that by grace we are not only given the ability to do more easily what we could with difficulty do by our natural powers, but, the ability to will and to accomplish what we could not do at all by our natural powers. God it is who of his good pleasure works in us both the will and the performance (Phil. 2:13).
Click to expand...
Do you see the problem? I am certainly not arguing that without grace you can acheive eternal life, or do supernaturally good actions. But you can do naturally good actions.

Please read this whole page, therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_005.htm, from where I draw the above quotes from Fr. Hardon (quoting the magesterial teaching of the Church).

Any thoughts?
VC
 
Oh, my Heavens! You’re back already! I’ve got to go earn a living, Pelagi – er, Verbum. I’ll return within 24 hours-or-so and deal with your next attempt to deny the necessity of grace.
 
sigh. :ehh:

I don’t think I am denying the necessity of grace.
 
. . . and although your joke about me being Pelagius is “cute”, I would happily discover that was the case since then I would know that I was in error and correct it.

The more dangerous proposition is to not realize one is in error.

I await your response.
VC
 
Biblereader,

I think you are referring to **supernaturally good acts, **also called in Catholic theology, salutory acts. For each of these acts, supernatural grace is certainly required. What Verbum Caro is referring to, I think, is naturally good acts, which does not require supernatural grace each and every time. Thus, Verbum Caro is not being Pelagian, as you suppose. He’s simply trying to reconcile your view of total depravity with authentic Catholic teaching.

From James Akin’s explanation…
Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. … [a Catholic] would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine, [That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge…]

… The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.[In *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Click to expand...
Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” (Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God’s grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any ***supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.***Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].

[James Akin, *A Tiptoe Through the TULIP,
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp]

However, you asserted on another thread: "every single moral decision each of us makes would be a bad decision"
**
If this is still your assertion, then it is contrary to Catholic doctrine unless you mean every supernatural moral decision. Every natural morally good act does not require supernatural grace.

Catholic doctrine, on the contrary, asserts:
“For the performance of a morally good action, Sanctifying Grace is not required (de fide)” [Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Click to expand...
, pg 234]

"The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (sent. certa)" [ibid.]

"Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [ibid., 235]

"In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order (de fide) [ibid.]

"In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfill the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time (sent. certa) [ibid., 236]

Natural acts will not suffice for eternal life. Yet the Catholic teaching that man can do naturally good and moral acts without the necessity of supernatural grace not Pelagianism, but it is opposed by Protestantism.

Thus, many of my Protestant family and friends would disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas when he asserts, "because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured. " (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2).

Do you see the distinction Verbum Caro and I are trying to make? Do you agree with Ludwig Ott’s presentation of *de fide *dogma as described above?
 
Biblereader,

You said:
**VERBUM CARO: We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act. I think it is important to be clear on this point and to not overstate your position.
Click to expand...
**No, we can’t. You are wrong. And, you are squarely disagreeing with both the Magisterium’s Bible, and the Second Council of Orange, as well as the Church’s condemnation of the monk Pelagius.
Click to expand...
What Verbum Caro has asserted is, according to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *a de fide dogma of Catholicism, which Catholics are bound to give their assent of faith. It seems to me, Biblereader, that you are the one who is wrong with regard to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Fr John Hardon and Dr. Ludwig Ott, in my view, are rather orthodox in their catechesis. They certainly have more theological training than either Verbum Caro and I combined, and I suspect, more than yours as well.
 
I know the Church has never formally declared that there is a limbo, however if some prominent theologians, who were declared to be saints of the Church, taught that there was a limbo then perhaps we need to at least take the idea seriously and perhaps the Church needs to undertake an investigation of the idea.
 
**It’sjustDave **and Verbum Caro side with the statement that

We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act. I think it is important to be clear on this point and to not overstate your position.

I say the exact opposite – that as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, by grace, without exception, and that man does no good except that which God brings about, by grace.

**BibleReader: **Gentlemen, I hate to tell you that your position really is the Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian heresy, condemned by the Early Church. Today we would say that you believe in “moral boot-strapping” – that a person can raise himself up from the profound aliernation of Original Sin without the assistance of grace.

Perhaps your error arises from a belief that the Adam and Eve story is a history book and so is not intended to say what goes on in each of us? Just a guess.

In any event, I can assure you that your position is against Roman Catholic theology.

Note that in your presentation above all you do is *contradict *the quoted portions of the Canons of the Second Council of Orange with Quesnel’s condemnation.

Doesn’t that make you a little nervous? Rather than implicitly condemn the Second Council of Orange, shouldn’t you at least try to figure out how the two can be true at the same time, since both are articulations of our inspired Magisterium?

Resolving the two…

(1) Second Council of Orange: “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (Canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (Canon 20).

…and…

(2)
Quote:

CONDEMNATION OF THE ERRORS OF PASQUIER QUESNEL, 1713

The theological errors of Quesnel (1634-1719) are fundamentally only a synthesis of the systems of deBay and Jansen. His essential theses are based on a confusion between the natural and supernatural orders. The dogmatic constitution Unigenitus, September 8, 1713, in which the errors of Quesnel were condemned, was confirmed by Clement XI (1700-1921) himself in a subsequent bull, Pastoralis officii, August 28, 1718, against those who had not accepted it.

ERRORS CONCERNING THE NECESSITY OF GRACE

  1. *](1). What is left in the soul that has lost God and his except sin and its effects, proud poverty, barren need, that is, the general inability to work, to pray, or to do any good work?
    *](38). Without the grace of the Savior the sinner is free for nothing but evil.
    *](39). The will that is not prepared by grace has no light except to go astray, no passion except for self-destruction, no strength except to wound itself, is capable of all evil and incapable of any good.
    *](40). Without grace we cannot love anything except to our condemnation.
    *](41). All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even among heathen philosophers, can come from God alone; and without grace such knowledge breeds only presumption, vanity, and opposition to God himself instead of adoration, gratitude and love.
    *](59). The prayer of the wicked is new sin, and what God grants them is a new judgment against them.
    ...is simple. It is what I said up above: ***God's grace continues to operate upon even those in a damnable state of Mortal Sin.***
    By imagining that you have successfully contradicted the Second Council of Orange, and by affirmatively asserting this:…

    We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act. I think it is important to be clear on this point and to not overstate your position.

    …you two really have staked out an anti-Catholic position.
 
And, I repeat: Baptism is NECESSARY for babies to achieve the Beatific Vision. That’s why there are those statements, posted somewhere up above, in Denzinger, to the effect that unbaptized babies go to “Hell,” but receive a different “punishment.” The “Hell” language in Denzinger is unfortunate. What “Hell” refers to, in connection with unbaptized babies, is a place which is away from God. The “punishment” of that place is probably a quality of life in Limbo which is about like our life here – about as happy, about as sad.
 
BibleReader said:
**It’sjustDave **and Verbum Caro side with the statement that

We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act. I think it is important to be clear on this point and to not overstate your position.

I say the exact opposite – that as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, by grace, without exception, and that man does no good except that which God brings about, by grace.
. . .

In any event, I can assure you that your position is against Roman Catholic theology.

. . . .

By imagining that you have successfully contradicted the Second Council of Orange, and by affirmatively asserting this:…

We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act. I think it is important to be clear on this point and to not overstate your position.

…you two really have staked out an anti-Catholic position.
Click to expand...

BibleReader,

With all due respect, I have no interest in contradicting the Second Council of Orange, only in helping you understand it in its proper light.

You really seem to be confusing works which merit a supernatural reward and works which are simply naturally good. It is true that without grace we can 1)do no supernatural good or 2)gain salvation or 3)even perservere in doing natural good acts for long. HOWEVER, it is clear to me – and to those who are not of a Calvinist bent – that the Church teaches that man is capable without grace of performing a naturally good moral act.

Look at Canon 7 of the Council of Orange:
**
CANON 7.
Click to expand...
If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

That canon, and the other canons in Orange were concerned with the Pelagian and Semi Pelagian view that we can merit eternal life or a supernatural end or do works of a supernaturally good nature without grace. It was NOT speaking to the Calvin’s misunderstand that man is incapable of any and all good acts, natural or supernatural. The Council adresses supernaturally good acts. The Church later has to defend against the error that man is even incapable of one single solitary naturally good act.

Lets try to make some headway here. Do you understand or admit to any difference between an act with is naturally morally good and an act which is supernaturally good (salutory acts)?

This is where, I believe, your confusion lies. Do you admit of a difference?

**
 
Verbum Caro:
BibleReader,

With all due respect, I have no interest in contradicting the Second Council of Orange, only in helping you understand it in its proper light.

You really seem to be confusing works which merit a supernatural reward and works which are simply naturally good. It is true that without grace we can 1)do no supernatural good or 2)gain salvation or 3)even perservere in doing natural good acts for long. HOWEVER, it is clear to me – and to those who are not of a Calvinist bent – that the Church teaches that man is capable without grace of performing a naturally good moral act.

Look at Canon 7 of the Council of Orange:

That canon, and the other canons in Orange were concerned with the Pelagian and Semi Pelagian view that we can merit eternal life or a supernatural end or do works of a supernaturally good nature without grace. It was NOT speaking to the Calvin’s misunderstand that man is incapable of any and all good acts, natural or supernatural. The Council adresses supernaturally good acts. The Church later has to defend against the error that man is even incapable of one single solitary naturally good act.

Lets try to make some headway here. Do you understand or admit to any difference between an act with is naturally morally good and an act which is supernaturally good (salutory acts)?

This is where, I believe, your confusion lies. Do you admit of a difference?
Click to expand...
**Verbum Caro: **Look at Canon 7 of the Council of Orange:

**That canon, and the other canons in Orange were concerned with the Pelagian and Semi Pelagian view that we can merit eternal life or a supernatural end or do works of a supernaturally good nature without grace.

**BibleReader: **First, let’s check the Canon which I actually quoted. Let’s see if that word “supernaturally” or any word like it, having such a meaning, precedes “good” in the exact words of the Canon.

The exact words of the Canon are,

“It is a divine gift, both when we think rightly and when we restrain our feet from falsity and injustice; for as often as we do good, God operates in us and with us, that we may operate” (II Orange, can. 9).

Justification by Grace Alone by James Akin**; What the Church Means by “Merit,” **by Mark P. Shea; **A Tiptoe Through Tulip, by James Akin; The Goodness of Creation, Evil, Christian Teaching, **by Patrick Lee.

It’s the same in article after article.

More to the point, we do not see the word “supernatural” before the word “good,” do we?

You have inserted into the Canon an idea that isn’t there.

Next, you make an assumption about Canon 7 that simply isn’t in Canon 7: You read into Canon 7 an intent to restrict Canon 9 to “supernatural” good, whatever that is. Where does Canon 7 say that? Please, show us. Where does Canon 7 imply that? Please, show us.
**
 
BibleReader said:
**“supernatural” good, whatever that is. **
Click to expand...

Ah, there’s the rub.

BibleReader, I will attempt to respond to your post as soon as I can, please be patient. And I thank you for your efforts to continue in this charitable discussion with me. Hopefully we both will come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Truth.

In the meantime (I have to earn a living too!) I suggest you (and anyone else who is following our discussion) to peruse this op.org/farrell/companion/comp220a.htm
just to show that the idea of “supernatural” good, and the necessity of grace, as I have been expounding it, is NOT that strange 🙂 but is, in fact, all over the place in on the web and in Catholic theology!

Pax,
VC
 
In fact, look at the Canon’s own paraphrasing of what is meant by “good”:

"It is a divine gift, both when we think rightly and when we restrain our feet from falsity and injustice; for as often as we do good, God operates in us and with us, that we may operate" (II Orange, can. 9).

Just “thinking rightly” – “Hmmmm, I’d better feed the kids”; “Hmmmmm, I think I’ll urge my neighbor to calm down and not slug his wife” – and “restraining our feet from falsity and injustice” – “Hmmmm, I’ll tell the truth about how I stole that candy in the store”; “Hmmmm, I think I won’t scream at my wife just because she’s making me feel ashamed simply by tel.ling the truth about what a crud I have been” – is the “good” being referred to.

That’s what I mean.

We can’t do ANY good at all – NONE – without the assistance of grace.

If it’s morally “good,” grace was there.
 
BibleReader: “supernatural” good, whatever that is.

**Verbum Caro: **Ah, there’s the rub.

**BibleReader: **Nope. No. No. No. No. No. The word “supernatural” is not even IN the Canon where you infer it. There’s no modifier at all.

The “rub” is, Should you be inferring anything at all.

Nope.
 
Bottom line: *But for *the impact of the grace of the cross, mankind is “depraved.” We are morally bankrupt.

Why do you think Scripture goes to so much trouble to tell us this?..

**“For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it…” Romans 8:7.
**Paul doesn’t hate flesh. He’s just saying that this is what flesh is without grace.

"For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other…" Galatians 5:17.
That’s pretty clear.

"Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin." Romans 7:25.
Ditto.

"The flesh is useless." John 6:63.
Whew! Could John have been any clearer?

"The LORD looks down from heaven upon the human race, To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one." Psalm 14:2-3; Psalm 53:3-4.
This is the same thing.

"There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one." Romans 3:10-18.
Here Paul paraphrases Psalm 14 and Psalm 53, and essentially implies that those Psalms are talking about “pre-grace mankind.”

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9.
That’s pretty clear.

Those verses are MAGISTERIAL TEACHING. You may not deny them.
 
Biblereader,

Can you clarify for us whether you agree or disagree with the following…

Dr. Ludwig Ott:
“For the performance of a morally good action, Sanctifying Grace is not required (de fide)” [Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Click to expand...
, pg 234]

St. Thomas Aquinas:
***"***human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured. " (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top