Limbo?

[FrRJBoyd]

---

That would place these children in the same category as our Blessed Mother and the precursor St. John the Baptist. A unique attribute of who they are—would go down the drain.

The Blessed Mother was not cleansed; she never had original sin… that is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. John the Baptist was cleansed in his mother’s womb. The theory the CCC is proposing is that God cleanses unbaptized children who die before gaining the use of reason some time before they die. I do not think it likely, but God can do as He pleases.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I would compare Limbo with the death of Our Lady.
Some believe she died, some believe that she never had to suffer death, each side has their arguements, but the Church has not said either is correct and has not said that either is wrong (please correct me if I am wrong). We must belive that she was taken to heaven body and soul, but we do not need to believe that she died or did not die before the Assumption.

It’s not a bad comparison; JPII came down on the side of the Blessed Mother’s death. But the theory that she never died has never been condemned.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

The Blessed Mother was not cleansed; she never had original sin… that is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. John the Baptist was cleansed in his mother’s womb. The theory the CCC is proposing is that God cleanses unbaptized children who die before gaining the use of reason some time before they die. I do not think it likely, but God can do as He pleases.

Sorry, I mean the theory that the CCC is holding out the hope for… There is a difference.

 

[Margarite]

It’s not a bad comparison; JPII came down on the side of the Blessed Mother’s death. But the theory that she never died has never been condemned.

Really, I did not know that, my mother had always taught me that Our Lady had not died, so I guess I will have to change my thinking and tell her to change hers also.

Have a Blessed Easter Father,

 

[Walking_Home]

The Blessed Mother was not cleansed; she never had original sin… that is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. John the Baptist was cleansed in his mother’s womb. The theory the CCC is proposing is that God cleanses unbaptized children who die before gaining the use of reason some time before they die. I do not think it likely, but God can do as He pleases.

---

Our Blessed Mother was preserved from original sin at the first instance of Her conception–and as you said --John the Baptist was cleansed in his mother’s womb. This is an attribute unique to them–they both were touched by God for a specific purpose. The “new” theory—proposes a similar attribute to unbaptized children—who come no where close to having the same standing as our Blessed Mother or have no mission to fulfill as John the Baptist.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

---

Our Blessed Mother was preserved from original sin at the first instance of Her conception–and as you said --John the Baptist was cleansed in his mother’s womb. This is an attribute unique to them–they both were touched by God for a specific purpose. The “new” theory—proposes a similar attribute to unbaptized children—who come no where close to having the same standing as our Blessed Mother or have no mission to fulfill as John the Baptist.

It is a good argument against the current “hope”.

 

[Margarite]

I had never heard that John the Baptist was “baptized” in the womb? Could you give a little more detail. That is interesting.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

There really is no issue of a falsehood being taught.
Rather, by reformable, I mean that (1) if there are children who die with original sin on their souls, they will not see God face to face, nor will they be punished with the same punishment of the senses as the damned. However, (2) God may cleanse all children of original sin before he dies. If he does so, there would be no need for limbo. We have no certainty as to which of the two possibilities is true, and we must safeguard the necessity of infant baptism. The possibility of limbo is practical, but true as well.

The previous teaching of limbo did not admit (2) as a possibility. It was the overwhelming and constant teaching of the theologians for a long (very long time) that (2) was not a possibility; that unbaptized infants went to limbo, or to hell.

Please give a logical syllogism which demonstrates this, because I think I have been more than clear in demonstrating that this is not the case.

The previous teaching of theologians was that salvation of unbaptized infants was NOT a possibility; limbo was the accepted destination.
The CCC explicitly holds out hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

Either the theologians were wrong or the CCC is. The Holy Spirit could not have been assisting both. Unless one could say the Holy Spirit is assisting the Church at coming to a fuller knowledge of the truth, in which case current “certain” truths maintained by theologians may also become open to question at a later date.

Well, there is a genetic bottleneck affirmed by genetics in that we have all come from one mitochondrial Eve, and another, later bottleneck in that we all have a common Y-chromosome father.

These are not bottlenecks in the autosomal nuclear DNA, and they do not provide any support at all for monogenism. Even if polygenism were true it is a tautology there will be a single recent most common ancestor in the maternal line, and in the paternal line.

Dating in the genetics of mutation is based upon a guess at the rate of this random process of mutation. I do not pretend to know if, in the creation of a new species, or in the safeguarding of a species after a genetic bottleneck, whether it is necessary for God to intervene in this process.

You need lots and lots of mutations to arrive at the genetic diversity we see today.

Adam and Eve are honored liturgically in the Eastern Churches, and liturgy is a living part of the Tradition… For this teaching to change, we would have to negate Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Impossible.

IOW, we couldn’t admit we were wrong.

As Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus, the Bible does not err in reporting the science of appearance, such as the sun rose, or the sun stood still. Nothing was being affirmed in Scripture’s statement that the sun stood still other than the miracle was that the sun appeared to stand still in the sky. Also from Providentissimus Deus, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, ‘not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.’”

That’s what Leo XIII wrote after the fact. The theologians of Bellarmine’s day did not accept the idea that the Bible was reporting only the “science of appearance”. They were aghast and thought heliocentrism would be to violate Scripture and Tradition.

When the Church defines something solemnly, as she did at Trent, it means it can never be changed; it is certain and true. If someone were claiming represent the Church at a later time tried to deny it, we would have to conclude that they were not indeed representing the Church. To absolutely deny the existence of limbo, one may be rash, but one is not in heresy. To deny the existence of Adam and Eve, and the unity of the human race, one would have to deny the solemn definitions of Trent, and would therefore be in heresy.

Where exactly was monogenism defined as de fide?

Germaine Grisez’s attempt to defend polygenism, e.g., falls very short of the mark. In his theory, others after Adam and Eve who become “hominized” enter into the human community and therefore gain original sin. But that isn’t by descent, it is by association, contrary to Trent. None of the other theories I have read are any better. In short, polygenism is untenable for the Catholic.

What about a spiritual monogenism but a biological polygenism?

 

[SFD]

Even though we may not hold this position, we have to be fair to it; no one is saying that someone who dies with original sin will be in heaven, rather, they are hoping that original sin is cleansed in some extra-sacramental way. We know it was cleansed in an extra-sacramental way (baptism by blood) for the Holy Innocents, who shed their blood for Christ and are rightly honored as martyrs. Dr. Ludwig Ott states, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (p. 114):

Other emergency means… for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire - Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire - H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-sacrament (baptism of suffering - H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

Yes, Baptism of Blood is one way. Desire is the other way. I don’t think one can say that Pope Pius XII did not know about Baptism of Blood as applied to the Holy Innocents.

“With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the Sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or woman in the form of the Church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.” (Decree for the Jacobites, Denz. 696)

You can see here that the Council of Florence does not mention Blood Baptism here either…why? Because it is irrevevant to the situation…it (martyrdom) is in no way usually available to infants and young children.

FrRJBoyd:

The reasons given are the universal salvific will of God, His omnipotence and our Lord’s statement to “let the little children come to me.” I’ll admit, it doesn’t seem as weighty as the case for limbo from the magisterial statements of Innocent III, Pius VI, St. Pius X and Pius XII, as well as from the common opinion of theologians from Aquinas until the second half of the last century.

It doesn’t seem as weighty? Are you serious? It’s not weighty at all.

But I have to agree with Ott (who was an excellent theologian and, I believe, accurately reflected the common opinion of theologians in the first half of the 20th century) and the CCC: positions other than limbo are tenable.

I believe Pope Pius XII was a far more distinguished theologian than Ludwig Ott and I’ll bet you Ott would have agreed.

FrRJBoyd:

In a strict sense, and with all due respect to Pius XII, I have to say that he was mistaken in saying sacramental baptism is the only means available for the salvation children before they acquire the use of reason. It is certain the Holy Innocents had baptism by blood. And what of the undoubtedly millions of Catholics that were martyred in centuries gone by? In all likelihood, some pregnant women were martyred, and possibly some unbaptized babies with their families as well. Did these children not die for Christ just as the Holy Innocents did? To be fair to Pius XII, I believe he was speaking of sacramental baptism as the only ordinary means of salvation. These other means, which could be a source of hope, are all extraordinary.

This is a ridiculous claim and I think you must know it. Of course Pope Pius XII knew that maryterdom was salvific for the children who are actually martyered…but he was addressing a convention of midwives who deliver children into the world. Why would he mention Baptism of Blood to them?
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

The perpetually insane, who have never had the use of reason, are in the same category as infants in what relates to the conferring of baptism, and consequently the sacrament is valid if administered.

If at one time they had been sane, baptism bestowed upon them during their insanity would be probably invalid unless they had shown a desire for it before losing their reason. Moralists teach that, in practice, this latter class may always be baptized conditionally, when it is uncertain whether or not they had ever asked for baptism (Sabetti, no. 661). In this connection it is to be remarked that, according to many writers, anyone who has a wish to receive all things necessary to salvation, has at the same time an implicit desire for baptism, and that a more specific desire is not absolutely necessary.

SFD

 

[FrRJBoyd]

It doesn’t seem as weighty? Are you serious? It’s not weighty at all.

Its only weight is that the CCC has mentioned this hope. It is not a moral command; we can still hold on to limbo for very weighty reasons.

I believe Pope Pius XII was a far more distinguished theologian than Ludwig Ott and I’ll bet you Ott would have agreed.

So we can set aside Ott as a theologian, but not others? This is not consistent with your previous posts, and does not address the issue.

This is a ridiculous claim and I think you must know it. Of course Pope Pius XII knew that maryterdom was salvific for the children who are actually martyered…but he was addressing a convention of midwives who deliver children into the world. Why would he mention Baptism of Blood to them?
SFD

So, is your point that Pius XII deliberately did not mention baptism by blood because it was irrelevant, but deliberately excluded the other possibilities and intended to teach that they were impossible? My point is, if he didn’t mention baptism by blood, he wasn’t going to mention anything purely speculative either.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

The previous teaching of limbo did not admit (2) as a possibility. It was the overwhelming and constant teaching of the theologians for a long (very long time) that (2) was not a possibility; that unbaptized infants went to limbo, or to hell.

The previous teaching of theologians was that salvation of unbaptized infants was NOT a possibility; limbo was the accepted destination.
The CCC explicitly holds out hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

That’s not entirely true. From a previous post, I mentioned that the CCC is not saying that someone who dies with original sin will be in heaven, rather, it is expressing a hope that original sin is cleansed in some extra-sacramental way. We know it was cleansed in an extra-sacramental way (baptism by blood) for the Holy Innocents, who shed their blood for Christ and are rightly honored as martyrs. Dr. Ludwig Ott states, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (p. 114), written decades before Vatican II:

“Other emergency means… for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire - Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire - H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-sacrament (baptism of suffering - H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.”

Either the theologians were wrong or the CCC is. The Holy Spirit could not have been assisting both. Unless one could say the Holy Spirit is assisting the Church at coming to a fuller knowledge of the truth, in which case current “certain” truths maintained by theologians may also become open to question at a later date.

I don’t see it. If God does not cleanse an unbaptized child who dies before the use of reason, that child will go to limbo. This is an established magisterial teaching. If God does choose to cleanse them (we really have no firm reason to believe that he does, but we know that he can), then they will go to heaven. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps God chooses to cleanse those children who would have been born to parents who desired to have them baptized, but not to others. As God said in Exodus, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy.”

These are not bottlenecks in the autosomal nuclear DNA, and they do not provide any support at all for monogenism. Even if polygenism were true it is a tautology there will be a single recent most common ancestor in the maternal line, and in the paternal line.

You need lots and lots of mutations to arrive at the genetic diversity we see today.

It does support the unity of the human race (rather than humans evolving separately on different continents simultaneously, as was once the accepted scientific theory). I am well aware of the difficulties with the number of mutations necessary to arrive at the level of genetic diversity. But I am also aware that we know only in part, and that our science is imperfect. Just because we can’t fit Catholic teaching into a currently accepted scientific model doesn’t mean I’m ready to abandon it. The model of genetic diversity you are using is anything but irreformable.

IOW, we couldn’t admit we were wrong.

No, in other words, we can’t be wrong. Faith is certain.

That’s what Leo XIII wrote after the fact. The theologians of Bellarmine’s day did not accept the idea that the Bible was reporting only the “science of appearance”. They were aghast and thought heliocentrism would be to violate Scripture and Tradition.

The Galileo case isn’t as straight forward as that, and I think you know it. Galileo was teaching scripture was wrong in its report of two miracles involving the sun. He should have been condemned for that! Have you perhaps forgotten that it was not Galileo who is responsible for the theory of heliocentrism, but rather Copernicus, a Polish priest? Did you know that it is really only an approximation that the sun is the center of our solar system; that the sun orbits a center of gravity for the solar system, as the planets do, which is only approximately where the sun is located? We can approximate it by calculating a sun-Jupiter system and adding the other planets as perturbations, but the many body problem in gravity is still to much for our limited knowledge of mathematics. Science is wonderful, but it is not my god.

Where exactly was monogenism defined as de fide?

It’s not. That’s why we’re discussing it being proximate to the faith. It is not defined per se, but if you deny it, you do deny a defined dogma. In this case, the dogmatic teaching of Trent that Original Sin is transmitted by generation.

What about a spiritual monogenism but a biological polygenism?

What does that even mean?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

That’s not entirely true. From a previous post, I mentioned that the CCC is not saying that someone who dies with original sin will be in heaven, rather, it is expressing a hope that original sin is cleansed in some extra-sacramental way.

Yes, and such hope was denied by theologians (this was the morally unanimous opinion of theologians) for centuries and centuries prior to this.

“Other emergency means… for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire - Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire - H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-sacrament (baptism of suffering - H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.”

These are (extreme) minority opinions, and were not accepted in mainstream Catholic theology.

I don’t see it. If God does not cleanse an unbaptized child who dies before the use of reason, that child will go to limbo. This is an established magisterial teaching. If God does choose to cleanse them (we really have no firm reason to believe that he does, but we know that he can), then they will go to heaven.

It was the firm teaching of theologians that God does not choose to cleanse them, that there is no other way besides sacramental baptism to be freed from original sin. It was not their teaching that there is no other known way besides sacramental baptism, but that there was a possibility that God would cleanse them in an extra-sacramental manner. (Citing the Holy Innocents does not help your case, as they died before Baptism was made mandatory by the promulgation of the Gospel.)

Now it is the teaching of the CCC that there is reason to hope that God will choose to cleanse them in an extra-sacramental manner. Either the CCC is wrong or the theologians were. There is a clear conflict on whether it is permitted to hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants or whether it must be taken as certain they are not enjoying the Beatific Vision. The Holy Spirit could not be assisting both the theologians and John Paul II to affirm two contradictory things, unless the concept of truth is evolving.

It does support the unity of the human race (rather than humans evolving separately on different continents simultaneously, as was once the accepted scientific theory). I am well aware of the difficulties with the number of mutations necessary to arrive at the level of genetic diversity. But I am also aware that we know only in part, and that our science is imperfect. Just because we can’t fit Catholic teaching into a currently accepted scientific model doesn’t mean I’m ready to abandon it. The model of genetic diversity you are using is anything but irreformable.

I would also say our theology is imperfect, and that the limbo/original sin case and the Galileo case prove it.

Genetic diversity is itself a fact, not just a model. You agree it is very difficult to explain from a completely monogenetic origin (bottleneck of two). Do you agree, at least, that the weight of the evidence would support a polygenetic origin, at least biologically speaking? Now, it’s true, you could have a “front-loaded” situation where the initial conditions are set such that the “right” mutations will occur, resulting in genetic diversity. Or you could have a situation where God is intervening, Himself assuring the “right” mutations to come about. But isn’t the simpler explanation that polygenesis is true?

No, in other words, we can’t be wrong. Faith is certain.

But we can be wrong in our determination of exactly what faith encompasses, can we not?

The Galileo case isn’t as straight forward as that, and I think you know it.

Yes, it is as straightforward as that, and I think you know that. Bringing up irrelevant details doesn’t help any. The facts speak for themselves. According to Bellarmine, it was just as heretical to say the earth circled the sun as to say Christ was not born of a virgin.

Galileo was teaching scripture was wrong in its report of two miracles involving the sun. He should have been condemned for that!

Unfortunately, he was not condemned for that, but he was condemned for teaching the earth’s motion. (And where exactly, anyway, did Galileo teach “scripture was wrong”? As far as I can tell he was very careful to maintain the truth of Scripture.)

(Cont…)

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Have you perhaps forgotten that it was not Galileo who is responsible for the theory of heliocentrism, but rather Copernicus, a Polish priest?

And what does that have to do with anything? The issue is not who thought up heliocentrism, but what the Church’s response to it was. The Church’s response was that the motion of the earth was “at least erroneous in faith” and “contrary to the Holy Scripture”

Sentence of the Tribunal of the Supreme Inquisition against Galileo Galilei, given the 22nd day of June of the year 1633

"It being the case that thou, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, a Florentine, now aged 70, wast denounced in this Holy Office in 1615:

"That thou heldest as true the false doctrine taught by many, that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth moved, and had also a diurnal motion: That on this same matter thou didst hold a correspondence with certain German mathematicians…

"That the Sun is the centre of the universe and doth not move from his place is a proposition absurd and false in philosophy, and formaly heretical; being expressly contrary to Holy Writ: That the Earth is not the centre of the universe nor immoveable, but that it moves, even with a diurnal motion, is likewise a proposition absurd and false in philosophy, and considered in theology at least erroneous in faith…

"Invoking then the Most Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His most glorious Mother Mary, ever Virgin, for this Our definite sentence, the which sitting pro tribunali, by the counsel and opinion of the Reverent Masters of theology and doctors of both laws, Our Counsellors, we present in these writings, in the cause and causes currently before Us, between the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, doctor of both laws, procurator fiscal of this Holy Office on the one part, and thou Galileo Galilei, guilty, here present, confessed and judged, on the other part:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all the censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons, and other Decrees both general and particular, against such offenders imposed and promulgated. From the which We are content that thou shouldst be absolved, if, first of all, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, thou dost before Us abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies and any other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, after the manner that We shall require of thee…

Did you know that it is really only an approximation that the sun is the center of our solar system; that the sun orbits a center of gravity for the solar system, as the planets do, which is only approximately where the sun is located? We can approximate it by calculating a sun-Jupiter system and adding the other planets as perturbations, but the many body problem in gravity is still to much for our limited knowledge of mathematics. Science is wonderful, but it is not my god.

Yes, I know all that. However, the earth moves despite those approximations. Are you a geocentrist or are you willing to admit the Church got it wrong in the Galileo case, and theology has been updated (specifically scriptural inerrancy) to allow for the Bible to be accurate as far as what sensibly appeared, if not a completely scientifically accurate description?

It’s not. That’s why we’re discussing it being proximate to the faith. It is not defined per se, but if you deny it, you do deny a defined dogma. In this case, the dogmatic teaching of Trent that Original Sin is transmitted by generation.

In the first place, what exactly does “generation” mean in this context? How is original sin transmitted to a hybrid clone, for instance, where nuclear DNA from a human somatic cell is inserted into an animal egg cell?

And, what if I hold both to polygenism and that original sin is transmitted by generation. If you ask me exactly how the two are consonant, I am not exactly sure at this moment, but future developments may show the way. Perhaps one way is detailed below. IOW, what if you are wrong that polygenism necessarily implies denial that original sin is transmitted by generation?

What does that even mean?

It means that humans have a polygenetic origin biologically speaking, but a monogenetic origin spiritually speaking, insofar as Adam and Eve are the common ancestors of all, but not the sole common ancestors of all. Adam and Eve really existed, however, and committed the first sin, transmitted to their descendants; somewhere down the line, they bred with non-human hominids.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Now it is the teaching of the CCC that there is reason to hope that God will choose to cleanse them in an extra-sacramental manner. Either the CCC is wrong or the theologians were. There is a clear conflict on whether it is permitted to hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants or whether it must be taken as certain they are not enjoying the Beatific Vision. The Holy Spirit could not be assisting both the theologians and John Paul II to affirm two contradictory things, unless the concept of truth is evolving.

This is more understandable; however, the assistance of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed only to the magisterium and to the faithful a whole, not necessarily to the opinion of theologians. In theology, where minority opinions are admitted, the issue is not settled. The Immaculate Conception was at one time the minority opinion of Bl. John Duns Scotus, dwarfed by the giant, St. Thomas Aquinas. The minority opinion that the Blessed Mother never died is still permitted. And there are many such disputed questions in speculative theology.

I would also say our theology is imperfect, and that the limbo/original sin case and the Galileo case prove it.

Indeed, our theology is imperfect. Very imperfect. However, the truth of dogmatic statements is guaranteed by God to be infallible. We are not dealing with a dogma with limbo.

Genetic diversity is itself a fact, not just a model. You agree it is very difficult to explain from a completely monogenetic origin (bottleneck of two). Do you agree, at least, that the weight of the evidence would support a polygenetic origin, at least biologically speaking? Now, it’s true, you could have a “front-loaded” situation where the initial conditions are set such that the “right” mutations will occur, resulting in genetic diversity. Or you could have a situation where God is intervening, Himself assuring the “right” mutations to come about. But isn’t the simpler explanation that polygenesis is true?

It does appear simpler at this time, but I would rather believe something that seems unlikely, though possible, than deny a truth of the faith. At one time, an eternal universe seemed the most likely scenario to scientists; even to Einstein. Yet, we have always had the teaching from Scripture that the universe has a beginning. Now, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept Fr. LeMaitre’s Big Bang Theory…

But we can be wrong in our determination of exactly what faith encompasses, can we not?

Yes, we can be, especially in these areas of speculative theology.

Yes, it is as straightforward as that, and I think you know that. Bringing up irrelevant details doesn’t help any. The facts speak for themselves. According to Bellarmine, it was just as heretical to say the earth circled the sun as to say Christ was not born of a virgin.

The tribunal was not a arm of the magisterium, but of the disciplinary function of the Church. It had no more authority to teach doctrine than the bishop’s conferences have without unanimous consensus of their members or a recognitio by Rome. Hence, we do not have to believe that it is a basic human right to move from one country to another, regardless of immigration laws. Nor do we have to believe the tribunal that condemned Galileo. BTW, the scriptural interpretations that he gave in writing to a duchess was very important, since it lead to the trial to begin with.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

It means that humans have a polygenetic origin biologically speaking, but a monogenetic origin spiritually speaking, insofar as Adam and Eve are the common ancestors of all, but not the sole common ancestors of all. Adam and Eve really existed, however, and committed the first sin, transmitted to their descendants; somewhere down the line, they bred with non-human hominids.

Interesting. I don’t think that opinion can be condemned outright. A human being is defined as having both a human body and a rational soul. If humans were to breed with some non-human hominid, and offspring would result, then the offspring would be human if and only if it has a rational soul. This would preserve the teaching on original sin, and answer the question regarding genetic diversity.

 

[SFD]

Its only weight is that the CCC has mentioned this hope. It is not a moral command; we can still hold on to limbo for very weighty reasons.

Right, the only weight is that it made it into the CCC. There is no reasoned basis for it and it stand opposed to the tradition of the Church. For 800 years theologians have taught this.

Even you say you “don’t buy it”…which is a strange position with respect to “an official catechism”.

FrRJBoyd:

So we can set aside Ott as a theologian, but not others? This is not consistent with your previous posts, and does not address the issue.

No, that is not what I meant at all. Ott quotes these theologians who are obscure. Ott also quotes Karl Barth’s objections to child baptism (see page 359, 6.2)…do you suggest we follow Barth’s opinion in that area? Notice that this Barth quote is found under the De fide doctrine, “The Baptism of young children is valid and licit”.

FrRJBoyd:

So, is your point that Pius XII deliberately did not mention baptism by blood because it was irrelevant, but deliberately excluded the other possibilities and intended to teach that they were impossible?

You must believe Pius XII deliberately did not mention baptism of blood for infants. You can’t possibly believe he was unaware of it and just made a mistake.

FrRJBoyd:

My point is, if he didn’t mention baptism by blood, he wasn’t going to mention anything purely speculative either.

I don’t think this argument is valid at all. He explicitly states that, “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

A midwife in a hospital could hardly be considering infant martyrdom as a option…water baptism (the sacrament) is the only way; as clearly stated by Pope Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII:

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

Btw, are you saying that speculative theology is mere “speculation” and is never certain?

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

This is more understandable; however, the assistance of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed only to the magisterium and to the faithful a whole, not necessarily to the opinion of theologians.

OK.

In theology, where minority opinions are admitted, the issue is not settled. The Immaculate Conception was at one time the minority opinion of Bl. John Duns Scotus, dwarfed by the giant, St. Thomas Aquinas. The minority opinion that the Blessed Mother never died is still permitted. And there are many such disputed questions in speculative theology.

But the impossibility of salvation for unbaptized infants was not considered a “disputed question in speculative theology” such as death of the Blessed Mother. It was considered as certain, and there was no admitted minority opinion. It was considered as “settled”.

Indeed, our theology is imperfect. Very imperfect. However, the truth of dogmatic statements is guaranteed by God to be infallible. We are not dealing with a dogma with limbo.

True.

It does appear simpler at this time, but I would rather believe something that seems unlikely, though possible, than deny a truth of the faith.

This, as I hope to have shown, is a false dichotomy.

At one time, an eternal universe seemed the most likely scenario to scientists; even to Einstein. Yet, we have always had the teaching from Scripture that the universe has a beginning. Now, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept Fr. LeMaitre’s Big Bang Theory…

The theory of the eternal universe was not based upon any data. Genetic diversity is.

Yes, we can be, especially in these areas of speculative theology.

Ok, glad you admit it.

The tribunal was not a arm of the magisterium, but of the disciplinary function of the Church. It had no more authority to teach doctrine than the bishop’s conferences have without unanimous consensus of their members or a recognitio by Rome.

The Congregations, including the Holy Office, were accepted as arms of the magisterium and were accepted as having the authority to teach doctrine; moreover, their opinions were ratified by the Pope. How is it that St. Pius X could claim that all were bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission if the PBC had no authority in doctrinal matters? Is it your position that the tribunal overstepped its authority when making its declarations? For it certainly taught doctrine, whether or not it had the authority to do so.

BTW, the scriptural interpretations that he gave in writing to a duchess was very important, since it lead to the trial to begin with.

Yes, but what matters in the end is what transpired at the trial, not what led up to it.

 

[SFD]

FrRJBoyd:

The bishop referenced Cajetan. I was completely unaware (and so apparently is Ott) that his opinion was ever stuck out by a Pope. Can you produce a reference for this?

Pope St. Pius V ordered it expunged. I don’t have the explicit reference to the exact passage yet.

Also, what page in Ott does he refer to Cajetan’s opinion…I can’t find it. Can you give me the page and section number?
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The important relation between Cajetan and the Angelic Doctor was emphasized by Leo XIII, when by his Pontifical Letters of 15 October, 1879, he ordered the former’s commentaries and those of Ferrariensis to be incorporated with the text of the “Summa” in the official Leonine edition of the complete works of St. Thomas, the first volume of which appeared at Rome in 1882. This edition has restored a number of passages which St. Pius V desired to have expunged from the texts, the publication of which he ordered in 1570. The suppressed parts, now for the most part inoffensive, were largely in the nature of personal views and had no direct bearing on Thomistic doctrine as a system.

Tommaso Cajetan (1469-1534), a Dominican cardinal, was the first Thomist to oppose publicly the mind of St. Thomas regarding the necessity for validity of the entire wine consecration form. In his “Commentaries” on the Summa, Cajetan, contradicting St. Thomas, boldly asserted that for the consecration of the Precious Blood nothing more is required than these four words: “This is my blood.”

The “Commentaries” of Cajetan were published at Venice (1533) and later at Lyons (1540). In 1570, some thirty-six years after Cajetan’s death, the reigning Sovereign Pontiff St. Pius V authorized the publication of a Roman edition. But at the same time St. Pius V explicitly ordered Cajetan’s claim (viz., that the short form suffices for validity) to be expurgated.

Raymond Capisuccus, a Dominican cardinal and a true Thomist, wrote a learned treatise, published in 1677, entitled Controversiae theologicae selectae. In Controversy 3, under the heading De forma consecrationis vini eucharistici, on p. 209 Capisuccus wrote the following: “They are in error who try to maintain that this was expurgated only because Cajetan downgraded St. Thomas’s opinion too much. For Cajetan here does not merely downgrade the opinion of St. Thomas; he departs from it. Just as he departs from him on other matters, but those other divergences were not ordered to be dropped from the Roman edition. It is evident that Pope Pius V did not agree with this opinion [the expurgated one] of Cajetan’s.”

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Right, the only weight is that it made it into the CCC. There is no reasoned basis for it and it stand opposed to the tradition of the Church. For 800 years theologians have taught this.

But it made it in there. That’s a fact. Unless you are going to attempt to deny the magisterial authority of the CCC and pretend it isn’t “real” Catholic teaching, you are faced with the fact the Catholic teaching has… (drumroll please)… evolved.

Even you say you “don’t buy it”…which is a strange position with respect to “an official catechism”.

Very strange.

 

[SemperFidelis]

For anyone who is interested, here is a great video of a recent speech given by His Excellency Bishop Fellay on the subject of Limbo:

youtube.com/watch?v=dBgXJeKG9dw

Also here is a great article written by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., on Limbo:

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html