Nope. So, you wrote this down word for word from Denzinger after you read it. And that’s where you got the quote today that you gave me - from what you wrote down from Denzinger. Yes or no. Because if you didn’t write it down, then I need to know where this excerpt came from.
Do you know what Denzinger Is?
The problem is that you haven’t quoted from Denzinger. You claimed one of your quotes came from Lyons II. Then you claimed it came from Denzinger. Then you admitted you didn’t own Denzinger and that it isn’t in your possession. Then you refused all further discussion about precisely where you pulled it from. Why don’t you just cite to the source that you were looking at when you included it in your post?
It’s rejected - at least by me. It wasn’t a very good case to begin with, but then when you refuse to provide your sources, it becomes downright lousy.
You won’t provide your sources. Why should I or anyone else be required to?
I could find nothing in Lyons II that came close to this quote. You say it’s Denzinger, but only the quoted part would be. Which led me to question, where did the part about Pope Gregory X and Lyons II come from? So finally I decided to do a google search on the entire quote exactly as you typed it. I got two results, both from the same website.
So tell me Carlus Magnus, is this where you’re getting your quotes? I’m in the process of comparing some of the others you’ve provided.
.Oh td, this is horrible.
I suppose we have to tell the moderator. No wonder Carlus didn’t post the link to his source. Posting links to anti-Catholic websites I believe is against the forum rules.Yes, quite interesting calling our Pope a manifest heretic. Quite interesting that I can’t find the quote in the documents of Lyons II. Here are some other quite interesting points.Here you are, I read Denzinger, I took exerpts from it for another project.
I still have those exerpts. I quoted that excerpt, from Denzinger. The very context fits my point, on Limbo, as stated, the source is Denzinger, so, not that you have the source, since you don’t give any credibility to it, look it up.
Wow, these guys have some interesting stuff [thanks for the link], but I’m not so sure about them yet. I thought I was the only one saying this stuff
First of all I never said any such thing.
?actually he made his case suprisingly well you have not made yours at all wihout the quote sources. Conviently you claim you dont own the source and we can’t look up the source, at least not conviently. We seem to have someone here who has found astonishing similar, i’m sorry that is not accurate, exactly the same quotes on another site. So if you are not a sedevacantist then you arrived at the exact same conculsion as the sedevacantist’s by a different road. I would have to say that sideing with people whos only defence if to call the pope a hertic is not a real good way to strengthen your argument.First of all I never said any such thing.
Second, Are you calling me a sedevacantist
Third, this seems to be your tactic to get off topic, which is about Limbo, which I answered, and you never responded to, but got off on some kick about a measly quote, which, even without, my position still stands.
Now you go hunt up some sedevacantist website and then accuse me using their material. If I subscribed to their positions, I would not be here now would I, this is for Catholics who believe in the Pope.
I think you are trying to discredit me, by using these guys’ material as an excuse.
Never said what? All I ever claimed you said was “Wow, these guys have some interesting stuff [thanks for the link] . . . .” I’m not claiming that you believe or proclaim that the Holy Father is a heretic or that you are a sedevacantist. What I am claiming is that you have not disclosed the original source for the material you have provided, whether knowingly or unknowingly.First of all I never said any such thing. Second, Are you calling me a sedevacantist
It is on topic. Here’s why. It is always legitimate to ask for the source of quoted material, regardless of the topic of the thread. The reason we disclose our sources is to allow others to review them for accuracy. This is especially true when a source purports to quote another source, and when the liberal use of ellipses is employed to cut out portions of the original text. Or when quotes can’t be confirmed after a review of the original text. How can any reasonable discussion of the topic (whether it be limbo or any other topic) proceed when the sources are in dispute?
Here it is in your post #77:
The emphasis is all the same (except you do not include the final comma in your bold emphasis) and the ellipses are in the same spot. Very strange, because you see, I own Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers, and here’s how it reads at 2016:
Very misleading of Dimond to not give the full quote here, and he conveniently neglects to mention that this was a plenary council only that was dealing with the Pelagian heresy at a regional level.
I believe you when you say you don’t subscribe to their position. If you say you didn’t know much of the stuff you’ve quoted comes from Dimond’s materials, that’s fine. Frankly I don’t know where you obtained it because you haven’t been willing to tell me. I’ll I’m telling you is that’s where it appears much of what you’ve been been quoting came from. I mean - come on - look at the Jurgen’s quote.
You discredited yourself the moment you gave a quote without citing the source where it actually came from. If you got it from Denzinger, cite to Denzinger. If it’s from Jurgens, cite to Jurgens. If it’s from somebody else’s material, say so.
No, but how about from Trent. This quote is of particular relevance since it refers indirectly to the errors of the Dimonds:
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/gerry.htm. From Sungenis’ website, and he has added the emphasis. I can give you numerous early Fathers that support the same.
But would you not say, td, that the desire for baptism must necessarily be an act of mental assent, which is understandibly absent from a young child, as they do not have the faculty to manifest this desire. And I cannot accept that such desire can be attributed by proxy, as in the case of sacramental baptism, because the sacrament is ex opere operato, whereas the baptism of blood or desire must be ex opere operantis, given of an assent of will.
I agree. I fail to see how baptism of desire in the strict sense is possible for infants. Vicarious baptism of desire may be a possibility in one form or another, but there are some papal pronouncements that seem to me to seriously limit the availability of this option, if not outright foreclose it.
I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, the Church has traditionally held that the martyrdom of infants does effect the baptism of blood:
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X
Certainly this may be the case of aborted fetuses or children that are murdered as an attack against the faith, but what of those individuals that die of disease, congenital defect or simply a tumble down the stairs. No martydom is taking place.
Right. But the point the non-limbo people make is that it is possible for God to remove original sin prior to death without sacramental baptism and without intent of the recipient. There is no contradiction between revealed truth and the theory that God could remove the original sin of infants absent martyrdom. Add to that the fact that limbo of the children is not and never has been a dogma of the Church, and you’ve got to admit that the non-limbo folks have a case.
On the surface one might agree, but I think you’re arguing corollaries here. Those that make the case for limbo take from the Council of Trent the dogma that no person bearing original sin may obtain beatific vision. This is a positive certainty. An attempt to argue that because we don’t know if God does remove original sin extra sacramentum somehow negates the dogma of Trent is specious at best and sentimentality at worst. We can hope for extraordinary redemption of children, as I do personally, but this must be tempered with knowledge of what the faith says, not what it doesn’t say.
I’m not sure I’m getting you here. To what corollaries are you referring?
Agreed. I would go further and say that it is a certainty that anyone who dies in original sin goes directly to hell.
You are right. It would be a foolish argument to make, especially since it is totally unnecessary for the non-limbo position. It is not a contradiction to hold that all who die in original sin go straight to hell and that God can at the moment before death grant the saving grace of baptism outside of the sacrament. It is possible then that God grants saving grace to all infants immediately prior to death.
And this is the major stumbling block for the non-limbo position. Just because something is logically possible (does not involve a contradiction with revealed truth) does not mean it is actually the case. The question is not whether God could save all infants outside of the sacramental scheme, it’s whether he in fact does and whether this is supported by the sources of revelation we have available to us - Scripture and Tradition. Obviously many of the early Fathers and theologians didn’t see this as likely or else we wouldn’t have the notion of limbo of the children. That is why I am hesitant to discard it. At this time I don’t see any alternative that is more likely.
The promotion of extraordinary redemption without support from divine revelation or patristic writing.
Agreed.
On the contrary, it necessarily would be at the center of the conflict, because extraordinary redemption of infants would at the very least render that particular canon of Trent to be a conditional dogma, which is a dangerous notion. Canons are always worded thus: condition renders effect. To say that Trent promulgated “condition renders effect except in the case of…”, then to many it ceases to represent a firm dogmatic point.
The obvious answer is that God can act outside His Sacraments. But we must also address that extraordinary redemption, at least in my own opinion, represents the introduction of an improper divergence in the character of the Almighty. It stresses His Divine Mercy to the detriment of His Divine Justice. The Augustinian position of paena damni (with even the possibility of paena sensus), takes the polar position, stressing Divine Justice. The just medium between the two is of course the sacramental system instituted by Christ as that perfect mixture, being available freely to all. Is it possible that the unbaptised infants are damned? I consider it even probabe theologically (though I hope I am wrong), but I do not question its Divine Justice. They bear the sin that all born of Adam share, and they too share in its penalty, both in life and, if left unclean, in death.
I think that if there were significant questions in the minds of the pillars of the Church regarding the soteriology of the young and infantile, it would’ve been addressed already. Given that conditions in the past have been far more contributory to infant mortality, if there was something to be defined regarding extraordinary redemption of children it would’ve already happened.