Limbo?

[SFD]

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 believe it is incorrect to say that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception.

Here is an example of the teaching of St. Thomas:

“Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, From the Commentary on the Book of Sentences.

Further proof that it is not a “given” that St Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question:

“5. The Teaching of St Thomas — Theologians are divided in their opinion as to what was the mind of St Thomas in regard to the Immaculate Conception. Some frankly admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be regarded as later interpolations. Between these two extremes stand two other groups of theologians, one of which holds that St Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate Conception, while the other merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed it.”

Pohle gives examples of each type of theologian - about four or five names for each group. So, we see from this that the ‘worst case’ we can assert is that St Thomas proved the Immaculate Conception with his principles, and yet failed to clearly formulate the conclusion, which of course later theologians did. Indeed the definition of 1854 was based entirely on his principles.

SFD

 

[SemperFidelis]

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.

The CCC is not in any way infallible; in fact there are several mistakes or amigious statements in it. I know many faithful Catholics who reject it outright or who are at least wary of the CCC in certain parts and rightfully so. Also, it is interesting to note that Limbo made its way into the first edition of the CCC, published in 1992.

 

[SFD]

The CCC is not in any way infallible; in fact there are several mistakes or amigious statements in it. I know many faithful Catholics who reject it outright or who are at least wary of the CCC in certain parts and rightfully so. Also, it is interesting to note that Limbo made its way into the first edition of the CCC, published in 1992.

SemperFidelis,

Which parts of The Catechism of the Council of Trent contain mistakes or ambiguities? Which parts are we free to reject outright or in part? Do you know any faithful Catholics who do this?

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I believe it is incorrect to say that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception.

Well of course not. This could never be admitted, lest the quasi-infallibility of the Angelic Doctor be challenged, so the history revisionism mode goes into full bore, with an attempt to deny what is clearly evident, just like as happens with the Galileo case. Has it ever occurred to people that intellectual honesty is the first virtue which must be present in anyone that claims to be standing for truth?!

Here is an example of the teaching of St. Thomas:

And here is another example:

Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: “Let it expect light,” i.e. Christ, “and not see it”–(because “no defiled thing cometh into her,” as is written in Wisdom 7:25), “nor the rising of the dawning of the day,” that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.

(ST III 27:2)

St. Thomas clearly and directly denies the immaculate conception in the above quote. It does not matter if he upheld it in another work or at another time. For the claim is not that St. Thomas changed his mind on the immaculate conception, but that he never denied it.

Further proof that it is not a “given” that St Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question:

A survey proves nothing at all.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Which parts of The Catechism of the Council of Trent contain mistakes or ambiguities?

Well of the parts I have read, which is most of the Roman Catechism, I would have to say none. However, I will mention for those who don’t know (not aimed at you SFD as I’m sure you already know) that Limbo is not mentioned in the Roman Catechism.

Which parts are we free to reject outright or in part?

Again, I would have to say none.

Do you know any faithful Catholics who do this?

I would also have to say no, as unfortunate as that may be (at least as it pertains to the problems with the CCC). The question is however, what would you have me do with such a “revelation?”

 

[SFD]

St. Thomas clearly and directly denies the immaculate conception in the above quote. It does not matter if he upheld it in another work or at another time. For the claim is not that St. Thomas changed his mind on the immaculate conception, but that he never denied it.

The idea that must be understood is that St. Thomas was very concerned to ensure that a dogma was not denied by those seeking to emphasise Mary’s sinlessness - and that dogma was the Redemption. Our Lord redeemed all men, without exception. St. Thomas’s emphasis that Mary also was redeemed is what has led to the controversy.

St Thomas cannot have denied that which was not yet formulated. What he denied was that the Blessed Virgin was not redeemed, which assertion was indeed a heresy which he was right to oppose.

SFD

 

[SFD]

I would also have to say no, as unfortunate as that may be (at least as it pertains to the problems with the CCC). The question is however, what would you have me do with such a “revelation?”

SemperFidelis,

First, I don’t think it’s a “revelation” for you.

Second, I’d ask you if you think the Catechism of the Council of Trent could contain errors? Then I’d ask you how you could ever know what those the errors were? Maybe there are errors that you just haven’t found yet?

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The idea that must be understood is that St. Thomas was very concerned to ensure that a dogma was not denied by those seeking to emphasise Mary’s sinlessness - and that dogma was the Redemption. Our Lord redeemed all men, without exception. St. Thomas’s emphasis that Mary also was redeemed is what has led to the controversy.

The reason for St. Thomas’ difficulty with the Immaculate Conception is perfectly understood. It doesn’t change the facts of the case.

St Thomas cannot have denied that which was not yet formulated. What he denied was that the Blessed Virgin was not redeemed, which assertion was indeed a heresy which he was right to oppose.

SFD

No, sorry, this is history revisionism, just like claiming Galileo was condemned for “denying Scripture” rather than saying the earth circled the sun. The facts speak for themselves. You’re confusing the reason for St. Thomas’ opposition to the Immaculate Conception (he was concerned its proponents were denying the Blessed Virgin’s redemption) with what he actually said, his actual denial of the doctrine on that basis. As for it not being “formulated”, all that means is that his denial was not, at the time, a heresy, as it was not known to be a truth of faith. There should be no argument that the following quote

But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. …that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.

is a direct contradiction of the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The CCC is not in any way infallible; in fact there are several mistakes or amigious statements in it. I know many faithful Catholics who reject it outright or who are at least wary of the CCC in certain parts and rightfully so. Also, it is interesting to note that Limbo made its way into the first edition of the CCC, published in 1992.

Well, there’s the other possibility (besides the theologians erring); the assistance of the Holy Spirit wasn’t present for the CCC, despite John Paul II’s assurance that it constitutes a “sure norm” for teaching the faith, it really teaches error. Nevertheless it doesn’t change the fact this is an official teaching, even if it is in fact erroneous.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

is a direct contradiction of the doctrine of original sin.

Of course that should say “doctrine of the immaculate conception”.

 

[SFD]

The reason for St. Thomas’ difficulty with the Immaculate Conception is perfectly understood. It doesn’t change the facts of the case.

But you speak here as if the issue were settled at the time of St. Thomas…and it was not. That is a fact.

No, sorry, this is history revisionism, just like claiming Galileo was condemned for “denying Scripture” rather than saying the earth circled the sun. The facts speak for themselves.

I was not speaking of Galileo. There is no comparison between the two.

You’re confusing the reason for St. Thomas’ opposition to the Immaculate Conception (he was concerned its proponents were denying the Blessed Virgin’s redemption) with what he actually said, his actual denial of the doctrine on that basis.

It was not a doctrine…and he held the Blessed Virgin sinless at birth.

As for it not being “formulated”, all that means is that his denial was not, at the time, a heresy, as it was not known to be a truth of faith.

Was it know to be true at the time?

There should be no argument that the following quote

is a direct contradiction of the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

Canon 1366, Section 2 : “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.”

Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise.

No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology.

“Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.”

Summa:

Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?

Objection 3. Further, as it has been stated above, no feast is celebrated except of some saint. But some keep the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore it seems that in her very Conception she was holy; and hence that she was sanctified before animation.

Reply to Objection 3. Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception.

Why do you think the Church of Rome did not celebrate this great feast? Were they in error too?

SFD

 

[Sophie]

We do not know for sure about Limbo, but it is not wrong to take either stance, just as it is not wrong to take either stance about Mary’s death.

I wish this was the belief of the Church also over the years for the sake of many people, such as my grandparents. They had 2 babies that died, one still-born and one that died very shortly after birth. This was in the 1920’s. They were not baptised before they died. Besides grieving terribly, as any parents do, over the loss of their babies, my grandparents had to watch as these babies were buried in unconsecrated ground in their Catholic Church cemetery. They were told, of course, by the Church that their babies could not go to heaven, but would be in Limbo. So they had to be buried in the unconsecrated section of the cemetery (as my mother tells me, the section for murderers and those going to Limbo.) I shudder to think how horribly my poor grandparents must have felt (and many other folks like them). All these ridiculous burial rules and regulations which, like Limbo, don’t exist any longer. Now, some on this board are trying to tell me that the teaching of Limbo was ONLY OPTIONAL!!! The Church sure never gave my grandparents an option where to bury their unbaptised babies! (By the way, this whole section of the cemetery was eliminated years ago, because the Church changed many of their cemetery rules - go figure!) So we can’t even visit their graves! THEY ARE GONE!! I, ALONG WITH MANY MILLIONS OF CATHOLICS WERE TAUGHT TO BELIEVE THAT LIMBO WAS A REAL PLACE! THOSE OF YOU ON HERE TRYING TO SAY THAT BELIEF IN LIMBO WAS ALWAYS ONLY AN OPTION, I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN I CAN SELL YOU REAL CHEAP! THROUGH HORRENDOUS REASONS SUCH AS THIS, I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT RELIGIONS STINK WORSE THAN THE NORTH END OF A SOUTH BOUND SKUNK!

 

[SeekingCatholic]

But you speak here as if the issue were settled at the time of St. Thomas…and it was not. That is a fact.

Where do I imply the issue was settled at the time of St. Thomas? Of course it wasn’t settled then. That’s not the issue. The issue is what St. Thomas actually taught about the matter.

It was not a doctrine…and he held the Blessed Virgin sinless at birth.

Indeed he did. That’s not the issue.

Was it known to be true at the time?

Obviously not. It was a controverted point at the time.

Canon 1366, Section 2 : “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.”

Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise.

No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology.

Thus the motivation to attempt to pretend that St. Thomas did not reach the wrong conclusion about the Immaculate Conception. After all, not everyone was happy with Thomism. A little history revisionism might be helpful against the claims St. Thomas erred on the immaculate conception.

But there should be no argument that St. Thomas said this:

But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.

which is in contradiction to the doctrine of the immaculate conception which says the Blessed Virgin did not contract original sin.

Why do you think the Church of Rome did not celebrate this great feast? Were they in error too?

SFD

And what on earth does what feast the Church of Rome did or did not celebrate have to do with the question at hand?

 

[FrRJBoyd]

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.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the only two congregations that were magisterial were the Holy Office and the PBC (before circa 1970).

There is an excellent article by Robert P. Lockwood, Galileo and the Catholic Church, which can be found here.

catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html
Robert P. Lockwood:

The finding against Galileo was hardly infallible. Though certainly an irate pope had been consulted in the condemnation, the document had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation. Rene Descartes, the French philosopher and friend of Galileo, noted the censure was not confirmed by a Council or the pope but “proceeds solely from a committee of cardinals.” This was disciplinary action, not doctrinal definition in intent. Three of the cardinals avoided signing it altogether. Galileo would continue to have friends and supporters within the Church, including the archbishop of Sienna who would provide him with his residence for part of his “house arrest.” At the same time, however, the condemnation was also unjust. Clearly, the Church tribunal had handled a bad situation badly, and the personal umbrage of Pope Urban VIII over being “duped” by Galileo had its impact as well. Galileo’s subsequent imprisonment was little more than house arrest at the Florentine embassy and later at the residence of the Archbishop of Sienna and finally at a house in Acetri. While Galileo would continue to conduct important scientific studies – and publish books on those studies – the fact remains that his condemnation was unjust. And even a comfortable imprisonment is still imprisonment. Most of all, Galileo personally suffered by the condemnation that seemed to mean that his faith was lacking and his reputation ruined because of it. The theologians who interrogated him acted outside their competence and confused the literary nature of Scripture with its theological intent.

Thank you for your intelligent dialogue.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

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”.

It’s not really strange at all. An exhortation that we may hope is not the same thing as formally teaching a doctrine. Regarding reformable teachings of the magisterium, one may hold a different opinion, if that opinion is based upon solid ground (such as previous magisterial teachings); however, we must always admit that this is subject to a later, more authoritative, magisterial decree.

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”.

The objection of a protestant is not the same thing as mentioning minority opinions of Catholic theologians that are in good standing with the Church. From the Tanqurey section you sent me by private message:

“If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.”

BTW, the reference to Ott’s work is on page 114 (Book Two, #25).

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.

No, I don’t think it was a mistake.

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.”

Pius XII is explicitly siding against such children being granted use of reason before death (incapable of such an act of love) but does not mention the other extraordinary possibilities. It is not established that he wished to deny them too, which ties into his omission of baptism by blood.

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

No; I agree with the Tanqurey text you sent me.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I wish this was the belief of the Church also over the years for the sake of many people, such as my grandparents. They had 2 babies that died, one still-born and one that died very shortly after birth. This was in the 1920’s. They were not baptised before they died. Besides grieving terribly, as any parents do, over the loss of their babies, my grandparents had to watch as these babies were buried in unconsecrated ground in their Catholic Church cemetery. They were told, of course, by the Church that their babies could not go to heaven, but would be in Limbo. So they had to be buried in the unconsecrated section of the cemetery (as my mother tells me, the section for murderers and those going to Limbo.) I shudder to think how horribly my poor grandparents must have felt (and many other folks like them). All these ridiculous burial rules and regulations which, like Limbo, don’t exist any longer. Now, some on this board are trying to tell me that the teaching of Limbo was ONLY OPTIONAL!!! The Church sure never gave my grandparents an option where to bury their unbaptised babies! (By the way, this whole section of the cemetery was eliminated years ago, because the Church changed many of their cemetery rules - go figure!) So we can’t even visit their graves! THEY ARE GONE!! I, ALONG WITH MANY MILLIONS OF CATHOLICS WERE TAUGHT TO BELIEVE THAT LIMBO WAS A REAL PLACE! THOSE OF YOU ON HERE TRYING TO SAY THAT BELIEF IN LIMBO WAS ALWAYS ONLY AN OPTION, I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN I CAN SELL YOU REAL CHEAP! THROUGH HORRENDOUS REASONS SUCH AS THIS, I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT RELIGIONS STINK WORSE THAN THE NORTH END OF A SOUTH BOUND SKUNK!

Dear Sophie,

 I am so sorry you feel this way about religion. Theology is not the same thing as faith, and theology is useless unless it brings people closer to God.  This is why St. Paul tells us to avoid specious argumentation, which many of us, including myself, probably indulged in within this post; such arguments were not meant to address your initial question, but were tangential.

 Faith is a supernatural gift we received a baptism.  We assent to a deposit of faith, namely, Scripture and Tradition, and we have the pope and the bishops to guide us to make certain that deposit of faith is safeguarded.  Not everything the magisterium teaches is on the same level of certainty, and I hope at least you were able to follow and agree with that part of the discussion.

 Theology is a human science; the study of sacred doctrine.  As such, it is limited, subject to development, sometimes confusing, and sometimes used to draw incorrect conclusions, even by saints and doctors of the Church.  St. John Chrysostom acknowledged it to be deeply flawed.  St. Thomas Aquinas, after having some mystical experience of God, said that all that he had written was so much straw compared to the reality of God, and asked it to be burned.  Aquinas is usually considered our greatest theologian.

 In addition to this, the Church has disciplinary laws.  Some are good (e.g., telling us to go to Mass on Sundays), some have not always been.  When the Church changes these laws, she needs to be very cautious that in changing them there is no appearance that the faith is changing, too.  I don't think this was done well 40 years ago, and so people who grew up, e.g., hearing that eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin were aghast that now it is allowed on Fridays outside of lent.  When other things were proposed to change that couldn't, things that were concerning the faith, e.g., such as the moral teaching against artificial methods of birth control, many people didn't buy it.

 I am very sorry that your grandmother's children's graves are gone.  The discipline was not good, and neither was the change that took away their graves.  We can disagree all we want with discipline, but we are forced to follow it, as our Lord followed the unjust condemnation of the Sanhedrin (religious leaders) and Pilate, even to his death.  There is often no justice in this life, even from members of the Church.  But please, don't allow this to let your faith or love of God cool.  The reality of God and His love for us is worth so much more than the cost of these trials.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the only two congregations that were magisterial were the Holy Office and the PBC (before circa 1970).

So then you concede the condemnation of Galileo was Magisterial because it was made by the Holy Office and that it was clearly doctrinal.

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and **the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. **
Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome.

There is an excellent article by Robert P. Lockwood, Galileo and the Catholic Church, which can be found here.

catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html

History revisionism at its finest.

The finding against Galileo was hardly infallible.

True.

Though certainly an irate pope had been consulted in the condemnation, the document had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation.

Oh really. Then why was Galileo condemned for maintaining an “opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture”. There is a clear doctrinal interpretation.

Rene Descartes, the French philosopher and friend of Galileo, noted the censure was not confirmed by a Council or the pope but "proceeds solely from a committee of cardinals."20 This was disciplinary action, not doctrinal definition in intent.

Sorry, no it wasn’t.

the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

That is not disciplinary. That is doctrinal.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

So then you concede the condemnation of Galileo was Magisterial because it was made by the Holy Office and that it was clearly doctrinal.

I don’t believe that the Commissary of the Holy Office, which handled trials, was considered magisterial. Even if it were, this would be considered a reformable teaching, and not infallible. Every word that falls from the mouth of the magisterium is not infallible. It seems as if people want me to defend a position which is untenable. I think I have stated my position clearly, and so, SeekingCatholic and SFD, I am signing off this thread. Thank you both for a very great debate!

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

 

[SFD]

Where do I imply the issue was settled at the time of St. Thomas? Of course it wasn’t settled then. That’s not the issue. The issue is what St. Thomas actually taught about the matter.

No, I don’t think you care what St. Thomas taught in total. You seek to discredit him as a theologian and Doctor of the Church. Why?

Indeed he did. That’s not the issue.

Ditto above.

Obviously not. It was a controverted point at the time.

Yes.

Thus the motivation to attempt to pretend that St. Thomas did not reach the wrong conclusion about the Immaculate Conception. After all, not everyone was happy with Thomism.

Who was not happy?

Canon 1366, Section 2 : “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.”

Does the above bother you? Do you think the Church erred in Her decision to make St. Thomas a Doctor of the Universal Church?

Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise.

No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology.

Does this bother you as well?

A little history revisionism might be helpful against the claims St. Thomas erred on the immaculate conception.

No, it is a presentation of what was actually taught by St. Thomas on the nature of Our Lady.

And what on earth does what feast the Church of Rome did or did not celebrate have to do with the question at hand?

I highlighted it because you imply that St. Thomas was somehow opposed to the mind of the Church.

SFD

 

[SFD]

I don’t believe that the Commissary of the Holy Office, which handled trials, was considered magisterial. Even if it were, this would be considered a reformable teaching, and not infallible. Every word that falls from the mouth of the magisterium is not infallible. It seems as if people want me to defend a position which is untenable. I think I have stated my position clearly, and so, SeekingCatholic and SFD, I am signing off this thread. Thank you both for a very great debate!

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

Thank you as well. It was a great example of an honest debate…something that is very rare here. I hope others will follow your example.

SFD