Is there a Limbo?

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

You state:

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

If it’s morally “good,” grace was there.

The condemned Jansenist propositions asserted, “The grace of Jesus Christ…is necessary for every good work,” (no. 2) and “Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil**”** (no. 38).Can you explain how your view differs from this condemned proposition (Clement XI, *Unigenitus, *Sept. 8, 1713, papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm)?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**It’sjustDave **and Verbum Caro side with the statement that

We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act.

---

Without sanctifying grace, man can perform a morally good act. These natural acts are in no manner efficacious to eternal life or the grace of justification (against Pelagianism). Yet, man can, in his fallen state, prior to first justification, perform a morally good act (against Jansenism).

This is what was taught to me in my Catholic theology studies as a de fide dogma of Catholicism. The proposition to the contary was a condemned Jansenist error.

 

[BibleReader]

itsjustdave1988:
Without sanctifying grace, man can perform a morally good act. These natural acts are in no manner efficacious to eternal life or the grace of justification (against Pelagianism). Yet, man can, in his fallen state, prior to first justification, perform a morally good act (against Jansenism).

This is what was taught to me in my Catholic theology studies as a de fide dogma of Catholicism. The proposition to the contary was a condemned Jansenist error.

Hi, itsjustdave.

I think that you should eliminate the word “sanctifying” from the conversation. We’re not talking about just one variety of grace, but any grace from God.

So that we are clear about your position, you are saying that this proposition…

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

…is a condemned Jansenist error?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

I think that you should eliminate the word “sanctifying” from the conversation. We’re not talking about just one variety of grace, but any grace from God.

I use the term sanctifying grace because this is the grace that makes a sinner just. This is the term Catholic texts on Dogmatic Theology such as Dr. Ott’s book uses to describe de fide dogma. This is distinguished from the sententia certa (certain Catholic doctrine) which pertains to actual grace, which states:

“Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (Sent. certa)” (Ott, 235)

If you agree with what Ott describes is de fide dogma, we can continue to discuss other kinds of grace and what is meant by it. Certainly, every breath we take can be described as a gratuitous gift (grace) from God, and as such, even our evil acts require grace such as this. But this doesn’t appear to be the kind of grace that you mean.

Do 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

, pg 234]

“Although the sinner does not possess the grace of justification, he can still perform morally good actions and, with the help of actual grace, even supernaturally good (though not meritorious) works, and through them prepare himself for justification. Thus all works of the person in mortal sin are not sins…” (ibid.)

“St. Augustine teaches that even the life of the worst man is hardly without some good works (De spiritu et litt. 28, 48).” (ibid.)

“Even infidels can do morally good works. Thus not all the works of infidels are sins. Pope Pius V condemned the following proposition of Baius: Omnia opera infidelium sunt peccata et philsophorum vertutes sunt vitia. D 1025; cf. 1298.” (ibid.)

“Holy Scriptures recognizes the ability of pagans to perform morally good works. Cf. Dn. 4, 24; Mt 5, 47. According to Rom. 2, 14 pagans are by nature able to fulfill the prescriptions of the moral law. … St. Paul had in mind real pagans, not lapsed Christians, as Baius wrongly held (D 1022). … The Fathers unreservedly admit the ability of infidels to perform morally good works.” (ibid., 234-235)

Likewise, from 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).

This means that man’s deeds prior to any sanctifying grace of justification is not always a sin. This is what Jansenism taught, and it was condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I concur with Dave.

BibleReader:
I think that you should eliminate the word “sanctifying” from the conversation. We’re not talking about just one variety of grace, but any grace from God.

BibleReader,
But that is exactly what is the problem. You seemed to have been talking about sanctifying grace.

Here is what you said:

BibleReader:

Bottom line: *But for *

the impact of the grace of the cross, mankind is “depraved.” We are morally bankrupt. Most people would agree that “grace of the cross” means sanctifying, saving grace. And I think that if we honestly look over the conversation thus far the concept of sanctifying grace was the grace at issue.

If you want to talk about “common grace”, or maybe God’s conservative action (keeping all things in being) and then call that “grace” that is a different conversation.

The fact is that your notion that

BibleReader:

*But for *

the impact of the grace of the cross. . .We are morally bankrupt. posits Sanctifying Grace as the cause in fact for any moral act.

I contend that you are equivocating between natural moral acts (which are good, which are moral, which conform with God’s law, but which have no supernatural merit, which are not salutary acts) and salutary moral acts (supernatural moral acts).

So when you say that “But for the impact of the grace on the cross we are morally bankrupt”, meaning without Sanctifying grace you can’t perform ANY moral act – you are stating something inconsistent with Magesterial Teaching.

Again, you stated:

BibleReader:

Man WILL NOT FORM A MORALLY GOOD INTENT WITHOUT THE IMPACT OF THE GRACE OF THE CROSS.

So, I think now wanting to take away the notion of “sanctifying grace” and just talk about any grace from God. . .well, seems a bit inconsistent on the level of normal everyday use of the English language. Is that what you meant this whole time?

I insert that qualifier “normal everyday use of the English language” because it is quite possible that you can explain to us that what you meant by “grace of the cross” really encompasses all types of grace, including “common grace” and God’s conservative power, etc.

Clement XI condemned the following statement:

1. 
   *]Without the grace of the Savior the sinner is free for nothing but evil.
   
   Which seems, quite close to your:
   
   
   BibleReader:
   

   Man WILL NOT FORM A MORALLY GOOD INTENT WITHOUT THE IMPACT OF THE GRACE OF THE CROSS.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

you are saying that this proposition…

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

…is a condemned Jansenist error?

Not at all. I quoted the exact propositions condemned. The above pertains to the supernatural order, not the natural order. Thus, Ludwig Ott likewise states:

Chapter 2

The Necessity of Actual Grace

§ 8.The Necessity of Grace for the Act of the Supernatural Order.

1. Necessity of Grace for Every Salutary Act

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary. (DE FIDE)

The Second Council of Orange (529) teaches in Can. 9…“as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (D 182), in Can. 20; (man does no good except that which God brings about that man performs) (D193: cf. 180). The Council of Trent confirmed this doctrine in its Justication Decree, Can. 1-3 (D 811-813)." (Ott, 229)

Jimmy Akin’s article “A Tiptoe through the TULIP” which you cited, quotes from this text by Ludwig Ott. It is to be understood in the context of the heresy it was refuting, which was Pelagianism, which pertained to natural deeds of men which they claimed were effecacious in the supernatural order.

Under par. § 9. of the same text, it states:

§ 9. Human Nature’s Capacity to Act without Grace, and the Limits of This Capacity.

The Catholic doctrine of grace stands between two extremes. Against the naturalism of the Pelagians of modern Rationalism, it defends the absolute necessity of gatia elevans, and the moral necessity of gratia sanans. Against the exaggerated supernaturalism of the Reformers, Baians, and Jansenists it defend man’s natural capacity to act in the sphere of religion and morals without grace. In opposition to both extremes, Catholic Theology distinguishes sharply between a natural and a supernatural order, between a natural and a supernatural religion and morality. (Ott, 233)

Ott’s text is used to teach Catholic Dogmatic Theology, and bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Church. It is certainly not to be understood as error free, but I refer to it so that you understand that Verbum Caro and I have both been taught this very same Catholic doctrine at Catholic universities. It is not simply our personal interpretation, but is corroborated by textbooks on Catholic dogmatic theology.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Henry Denzinger’s *Sources of Catholic Dogma, *translated by Roy F. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum:

“Freedom of will as a capacity for good (supernatural) was wholly lost, and as concerns the rest (natural things) his free will was not indeed destroyed but was weakened; man can, however, do certain good things even without grace even if without a special privilege he cannot avoid all venial sins…Therefore not all works of infidels or sinners are sins or splendid vices” (Systematic Index, VIId, pg. [22])

Denzinger cites the condemnation from St. Pius V of the errors of Michael du Bay, from *Ex omnibus afflictionibus, *Oct 1, 1567, which condemned the following propositions as error:

1. All works of infidels are sins, and the virtues of philosophers are vices…
2. Free will, without the help of God’s grace, has only power for sin.
3. It is Pelagian error to say that free will has the power to avoid any sin…
4. He agrees with Pelagius, who acknowledges anything as a natural good, that is, whatever he thinks has arisen from the forces of nature alone…
5. Some good, or at least not bad use of free will can be admitted only by a Pelagian error; and he who knows and teaches this, does injury to the grace of Christ.

(Denzinger 1025, 1027, 1028, 1037,1065)

 

[BibleReader]

“Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (Sent. certa)” (Ott, 235)

Hi, It’sJustDave. If Ott means an *objectively *morally good act, meaning, an act which generates an objectively good result, even if the actor had bad motives, his contention survives.

If Ott means a subjectively morally good act, meaning an act generated by intentions which God would perceive as morally good, his contention is in error. This was Pelegius’ error, condemned by the Church.

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

You ask me if I agree with that sentence. Of course! The damned do morally good things all of the time, but as a consequence of the use by them of ACTUAL grace – the grace impacting ACTION – from God.

Ott, and you, seem to be squarely contradicting the Second Counsel of Orange…

(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).

…as well as the Scriptural verses I quote up above.

I believe that you misunderstand the single most basic point of the Original Sin story in Scripture: We CAN’T do it without the grace of the cross.

I suspect that Ott actually *agrees *with me, and that his agreement with your perspective is only illusory. Proof: Ott goes on to explain, “Although the sinner does not possess the grace of justification, he can still perform morally good actions and, with the help of actual grace, even supernaturally good (though not meritorious) works, and through them prepare himself for justification. Thus all works of the person in mortal sin are not sins…” (ibid.)

I suspect that Ott’s meaning in the dichotomy he infers in the underlined portion is this: By “morally good [but, inferentially, not ‘supernaturally good’] actions,” he means acts that are only *accidentally objectively good but either subjectively morally ambiguous, or evil – *acts such as nailing Christ to the cross, the result of bad motives or ignorance, with, in respect of the actors, an accidentally objectively good result – salvation of mankind. By “supernaturally good…works,” he means acts that are intentionally subjectively good – acts such as the Good Thief defending Christ from his cross.

 

[BibleReader]

**“St. Augustine teaches that even the life of the worst man is hardly without some good works (De spiritu et litt. 28, 48).” (ibid.) **Where does this affirmatively declare that no Actual Grace was operative?

**“Even infidels can do morally good works. Thus not all the works of infidels are sins. Pope Pius V condemned the following proposition of Baius: Omnia opera infidelium sunt peccata et philsophorum vertutes sunt vitia. D 1025; cf. 1298.” (ibid.) **Where does this affirmatively declare that no Actual Grace was operative?

**“Holy Scriptures recognizes the ability of pagans to perform morally good works. Cf. Dn. 4, 24; Mt 5, 47. According to Rom. 2, 14 pagans are by nature able to fulfill the prescriptions of the moral law. … St. Paul had in mind real pagans, not lapsed Christians, as Baius wrongly held (D 1022). … The Fathers unreservedly admit the ability of infidels to perform morally good works.” (ibid., 234-235) **Where does this affirmatively declare that no Actual Grace was operative?

"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). You have emphasized the wrong words, here. Isn’t Thomas making Ott’s point? One DOESN’T need grace to engage in objectively-but-not-subjectively good works, but one DOES need grace to perform subjectively good works…"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).
When Thomas says “perfectly moved,” I do not think that he is talking about Nirvana on Earth. He’s talking about acting with God’s goodness in mind, in the same sense that “perfect” contrition" doesn’t mean “the best darn tootin’ contrition anybody ever had on Earth,” but rather perfected contrition. Thus, Thomas compares “perfectly moved” to “the movements of one in [spiritual] health.” The “medicine” he refers to is Actual Grace.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

You said:

We CAN’T do it without the grace of the cross.

If you mean by “it” the ability to do natural good works Catholic doctrine disagrees with you. If you mean by “it”, the attainment of eternal life, then you are correct.

I agree that natural good works, although not blameworthy as sins, cannot rightly deserve the praise which are due to supernatural righteous conduct having pious motives. Natural good works can be no more than naturally commendable.

Thus, from William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol 3: “Without grace man can still perform actions that are naturally commendable” (Doctrinal Index, 651). Ott, Denzinger, and Jurgens all have the Nihil Obstat and *Imprimatur *of the Church.

Thus, according to St. Augustine,

If, however, we do naturally the things that are of the law (Rom 3:21) are not yet to be included in the number of those whom the grace of Christ justifies. (St. Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, 27,48)

The natural accomplishment of the law precludes supernatural grace.

St. Augustine goes on to state that such natural accomplishment of the law, we “cannot blame,” although “if the motivations of these actions were to be discussed they would hardly be found to be deserving of the praise and defense which are due to righteous conduct.” (ibid.)

Thus, natural good works are not blameworthy as sins, according to St. Augustine, although they are indeed “done according to the rule of righteousness…neither can we rightly and deservedly praise” (ibid.)

St. Augustine view of depravity is not that it is total, explaining instead that…

“since the image of God has not, even until now, been so completely erased in the human soul by the stain of earthly affections that nothing even of its barest outlines remains, whence it can rightly be said that man, even in the very impiety of his life, knows and does something of the law… For just as a righteous man is not kept from eternal life by certain venial sins, which are always a part of this life, so too some good works are of no avail for the advancement of an impious man to eternal salvation; for it would be most difficult to find the life of anyone, even the worst of sinners, without some good works” (ibid.)

It doesn’t seem to me that you even admit to natural good works, as St. Augustine does, which are good works apart from the supernatural order. Verbum Caro and I are merely stating that there are such a thing in Catholic doctrine as natural good works, which is not efficacious toward eternal life, but neither are they blameworhty as sins. Thus, we describe these works as “good” just as the Church does, although we make the same distinction as the Church does that these natural “good works” belong to the natural order, not the supernatural order.

You may think I don’t understand Catholic doctrine on Original Sin, but my Catholic post-graduate professors of theology disagree with you.

 

[BibleReader]

itsjustdave1988:

Biblereader,

You said:

If you mean by “it” the ability to do natural good works Catholic doctrine disagrees with you. If you mean by “it”, the attainment of eternal life, then you are correct.

I agree that natural good works, although not blameworthy as sins, cannot rightly deserve the praise which are due to supernatural righteous conduct having pious motives. Natural good works can be no more than naturally commendable.

Thus, from William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol 3: “Without grace man can still perform actions that are naturally commendable” (Doctrinal Index, 651). Ott, Denzinger, and Jurgens all have the Nihil Obstat and *Imprimatur *of the Church.

Thus, according to St. Augustine,

The natural accomplishment of the law precludes supernatural grace.

St. Augustine goes on to state that such natural accomplishment of the law, we “cannot blame,” although “if the motivations of these actions were to be discussed they would hardly be found to be deserving of the praise and defense which are due to righteous conduct.” (ibid.)

Thus, natural good works are not blameworthy as sins, according to St. Augustine, although they are indeed “done according to the rule of righteousness…neither can we rightly and deservedly praise” (ibid.)

St. Augustine view of depravity is not that it is total, explaining instead that…
It doesn’t seem to me that you even admit to natural good works, as St. Augustine does, which are good works apart from the supernatural order. Verbum Caro and I are merely stating that there are such a thing in Catholic doctrine as natural good works, which is not efficacious toward eternal life, but neither are they blameworhty as sins. Thus, we describe these works as “good” just as the Church does, although we make the same distinction as the Church does that these natural “good works” belong to the natural order, not the supernatural order.

You may think I don’t understand Catholic doctrine on Original Sin, but my Catholic post-graduate professors of theology disagree with you.

Dave, I don’t understand you.

If the * intent* of the actor was to be morally good, as such; chaitable, as such; Godly, as such; or in accord with the commandments, as such, then, believe me, it was the product of grace. There is no alternative. You make not disagree with the Magisterium’s Second Council of Orange, or with the Magisterium’s Bible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

Dave, I don’t understand you.

What don’t you understand, Jurgens, Denzinger, or Ott? Aquinas or Augustine? Because they all affirm that “by nature” man can do natural good works. “Natural” by definition means without the supernatural help of actual or justifying grace.

In fact, according to Catholic teaching, actual grace is defined only with respect to the supernatural order. Observe,

ACTUAL GRACE. Temporary supernatural intervention by God to enlighten the mind or strengthen the will to perform supernatural actions that lead to heaven. Actual grace is therefore a transient divine assistance to enable man to obtain, retain, or grow in supernatural grace and the life of God. (Fr. John Hardon, Catholic Pocket Dictionary)

Thus Dr. Ott explicitly states,"According to Rom. 2, 14 pagans are by nature able to fulfill the prescriptions of the moral law. "

“By nature” means apart from supernatural grace. Actual grace is not “by nature” because it is by definition, supernatural.

You make not disagree with the Magisterium’s Second Council of Orange, or with the Magisterium’s Bible.

Thank you for your concern. I don’t disagree with either. I also accept what Ott describes as de fide dogma and *sententia certa *of the Catholic Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From the article on “Actual Grace,” *The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI, *1909, Nihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor, Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York:

A. The Necessity of Actual Grace

With the early Protestants and Jansenists, the necessity of actual grace may be so exaggerated as to lead to the assertion of the absolute and complete incapacity of mere nature to do good… We maintain against early Protestantism and Jansenism the capacity of mere nature in regard to both religious knowledge and moral action.

… Not less reasonable an attitude was assumed by the Church respecting the **moral capabilities of fallen man in the domain of natural ethics. **Against Baianism, the forerunner of Jansenism, she adhered in her teaching to the conviction confirmed by healthy experience, that natural man is capable of performing some naturally good works without actual grace, and particularly without the grace of faith, and that not all the deeds of infidels and pagans are sins. This is evidenced by the condemnation of two propositions of Baius by Pope Pius V in the year 1567: “Liberum arbitrium sine gratiae Dei adjutorio nonnisi ad peccandum valet” (“Free will without the aid of God’s grace avails for nothing but sin.” – Prop. xxvii), and again: "Omnia opera infidelium sunt peccata et philosophorum virtutes sunt vitia " (“All the acts of infidels are sins, and their virtues are vices.” – Prop. 25)…Paul has explicitly stated that “the Gentiles, who have not the [Mosaic] law, do by nature naturaliter, physei] those things that are of the law” (Rom., ii, 14). The Fathers of the Church did not judge differently. … even the most wicked man is not found completely wanting in naturally good works (“De Spiritu et litera”, c. xxviii. – Cf. Ripalda, “De Ente supernaturali”, tom. III: “Adversus Baium et Baianos”, Cologne, 1648; J. Ernst, “Werke und Tugenden der Unglaubigen nach Augustinus”, Freiburg, 1871).

 

[BibleReader]

Dave, you really are deceiving yourself on this issue. Try reading-up on the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies. This is where the issue of “good” achieved without God is most precisely considered.

I repeat the Canons of the Second Council of Orange, which you never quite squarely consider, in your zeal to ignore the teaching of the Magisterium on this point IN and OUT of Scripture.

(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).

Canons are written to be relatively self-contained expressions of doctrine.

You jump from Ott to Hardon as though they used the exact same specialized vocabulary, like their minds were joined by wires. They didn’t.

Fr. Hardon, with whom I talked a few times before his death, would, in my opinion, go with the Second Council of Orange, that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” and that “man does no good except that which God brings about.”

 

[TNT]

Limbo was NEVER a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was a bad theological theory that got FAR TOO much exposure. Many Catholics believe (or once believed) that this was an ‘official’ doctrine of the Church. The Church has NEVER taught such an idea. I hope this whole idea goes into limbo (or, better yet, straight to hell, where it belongs).

Wherever you send it, at least don’t send it to where your entire Diocese of Portland went.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Wherever you send it, at least don’t send it to where your entire Diocese of Portland went.

It’s actually an Archdiocese, FWIW

But where did my (arch)diocese go? My (arch)diocese went to bankruptcy court (as any US institution may do) and successfully reached a negotiated settlement with nearly all of the claimants who were harmed by the actions of priests and bishops, most of whom are now dead. Our present holy and devout Archbishop (Vlazny) has readily and repeatedly admitted and begged forgiveness for these transgressions, and done all in his power to compensate the victims (as evidenced by the settlement).

I sincerely hope Limbo does not undergo such a “reconciliation” – and this seems especially unlikely in regards to Benedict’s recent pronouncement in this regard.