Limbo

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoyalViews
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course you don’t agree with it. You are Orthodox. You have an entirely different concept of Original Sin in the first place. And since this forum is not for the discussion of which belief system is superior or to discuss the relative merits of each, why are you chiming in with what the Orthodox believe? I for one really don’t care. The Orthodox Forum itself is the place for such discussions. I do not go on the Orthodox Forum and dump on your faith and loudly proclaim that you guys are wrong in your beliefs. Why do you come here and dump on ours?

It seems almost as if some of the Orthodox have a mission of sorts on the Traditional Forum, one which I believe the moderators have already commented on.

What is it about Traditional Roman Catholicism that scares and bothers you guys so much?
I would venture a gues that the Orthodox may view universal papal jurisdiction with a bit of suspicion. Take a look at the disaster which was imposed on the Catholic world by the liturgical movement of Vatican II endorsed by the Pope.
 
Vatican II was guided by the Holy Spirit. But Vatican II did not make any liturgical changes.
 
Yes, there were. But they were not part of Vatican II itself. They were enacted afterwards, and done in the spirit of Vatican II’s overall goal. But I didn’t want you to give our Orthodox friend any other fodder for him to possibly gripe about the ecumenical councils directly. 🙂
 
Yes, there were. But they were not part of Vatican II itself. They were enacted afterwards, and done in the spirit of Vatican II’s overall goal. But I didn’t want you to give our Orthodox friend any other fodder for him to possibly gripe about the ecumenical councils directly. 🙂
There is plenty for him to complain about concerning the effects of universal papal jurisdiction on the liturgical renewal after Vatican II.
 
Sounds like it’s you who wants to complain about the Catholic Church that you profess to belong to. Start another thread…
 
Sounds like it’s you who wants to complain about the Catholic Church that you profess to belong to. Start another thread…
This was something originally brought up by you. Now you don’t want anyone to comment on your unfounded remarks?
 
Um, let’s see… we were discussing limbo and original sin. Then in post #240 you chimed in that “the Orthodox may view universal papal jurisdiction with a bit of suspicion. Take a look at the disaster which was imposed on the Catholic world by the liturgical movement of Vatican II endorsed by the Pope.”

So tell me who it was that originally brought this up??? :hmmm:

Your comments are not be rebuffed; I’m just saying that you should start another thread.
 
Reading Hesychios points out the need for understanding some of the finer points of Original sin, how it effects the soul along with Baptism. If I’ve been careless in some respect in what I write I hope a catholic brother or sister will clarify things.

Original sin distorts the soul in that the higher faculties that are proper to spiritual life and are not dependent on corporeal organs to operate were not subject in any way to the lower faculties that do require corporeal organs to operate.

The powers of nature no longer served but became hostile. The body revealed this fallen state to the intellect by making visible it’s rebellion. Adam and Eve suffered involuntary movements of the body. This shamed them as it still causes embarrassement today. This inability to rule over the earth of our flesh is parallelled externally in the world because those powers of nature within us operate in the world.

Our bodies glorify the law of death now as do our souls because neither are ordered as they were before the fall.

Life with the body imprints it’s pattern on the soul. Jesus’ life of 30 plus years imprinted a pattern of human life tht was a death that lead to resurrection. That pattern is human life and it belongs to humanity now. It doesn’t reorder the powers of the soul but it does open the way for that soul to a pattern of life that does. That pattern of human life lived by Jesus , a life that etched it’s pattern on His soul just as our lives shape our souls. That pattern of life that is the soul of Jesus but a pattern of life that our souls can unite too and be identified with is Baptism.
 
Of course you don’t agree with it. You are Orthodox. You have an entirely different concept of Original Sin in the first place.
I am glad you pointed this out, because some apologists like to make the astounding claim that we believe the same things, but express them differently. Clearly that is not true.
And since this forum is not for the discussion of which belief system is superior or to discuss the relative merits of each, why are you chiming in with what the Orthodox believe? I for one really don’t care.
I accept that. You should not care.

However Pope John Paul II did suggest that the church needs to learn to breathe with both lungs.
The Orthodox Forum itself is the place for such discussions. I do not go on the Orthodox Forum and dump on your faith and loudly proclaim that you guys are wrong in your beliefs. Why do you come here and dump on ours?
CAF does not have an Orthodox section, sorry.

If you would prefer I go away perhaps I will pull back a little bit.
It seems almost as if some of the Orthodox have a mission of sorts on the Traditional Forum, one which I believe the moderators have already commented on.
Is this not a place for discussion about theology? Or is it one where everyone is supposed to slap one another on the back and say “there’s a good fellow!”

Wouldn’t you agree that it is better to have challenging discussions? All you hae to do is defend your beliefs in Truth. I already mentioned that I don’t expect you to agree, and that’s OK.

I am learning every day here.
What is it about Traditional Roman Catholicism that scares and bothers you guys so much?
I really enjoy the discussions here. It represents real Latin Catholicism, not that wishy-washy stuff people in some of the other sections of CAF put forward. Like I said, some have astoundingly suggested that we all believe the same things. I see a clear contrast.
 
I am glad you pointed this out, because some apologists like to make the astounding claim that we believe the same things, but express them differently. Clearly that is not true.

I accept that. You should not care.

However Pope John Paul II did suggest that the church needs to learn to breathe with both lungs.

CAF does not have an Orthodox section, sorry.

If you would prefer I go away perhaps I will pull back a little bit.
Is this not a place for discussion about theology? Or is it one where everyone is supposed to slap one another on the back and say “there’s a good fellow!”

Wouldn’t you agree that it is better to have challenging discussions? All you hae to do is defend your beliefs in Truth. I already mentioned that I don’t expect you to agree, and that’s OK.

I am learning every day here.
I really enjoy the discussions here. It represents real Latin Catholicism, not that wishy-washy stuff people in some of the other sections of CAF put forward. Like I said, some have astoundingly suggested that we all believe the same things. I see a clear contrast.
John Paul II made some truly bad decisions while Pontiff so bringing him up is not likely to convince me of anything. He was a good holy man and he did some great things for the faith, no doubt about it. He also displayed horrible judgement on many occasions and did not seem to have a great degree of control over the Vatican and the faith at all.

I did err when making the statement about the Orthodox section. Sorry about that. Since I have never been there I assumed that the Forum did in fact represent the Orthodox view especially since some who do hang out there fairly often come on this forum to tell us that we are wrong as well.

Thank you for agreeing with me on the don’t care part. How you guys worhip and what you believe is entirely up to you and I respect that.

As far as going away that is entirely up to you. However, pointing out that our theology is wrong seems to me to be a bit judgemental don’t you agree?

I agree with you that we do not believe the same things :thumbsup:and are not as some of the ecumenical among us say so close that we are almost touching.

Defending our positions here with too much vigor can land us in some degree of hot water. We have to walk a fine line.

I have answered your questions. Now would you please answer mine? What is it about traditional Roman Catholicism is it that you guys are afraid of and hate so much?
 
On another thread, fellows, please, the whole anti-Latin thing. Or the Vatican II thing.

I’m sure the different views permitted in ‘Orthodoxy’ on original sin would be worth discussing there too.
 
I looked up the index of The Catechism of The Catholic Church and looked for “Limbo”—nothing there!! Why? Because it is not a doctrine that Catholics believe in, as an act of faith.What happened was that the Doctors of The Church wanted to highlight the need for Baptism.
The CCC is a summary of the Catholic Faith, but it is not the whole Catholic faith. The Roman Catechism had this to say:The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Early in this thread, Shin and Ultima Ratio quoted from Church councils that taught the same thing. Una fides added details on baptism of desire from the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X. The CCC needs to be read in the light of the consistent Church teaching that came before it.
There is a danger that extreme positions can be extrapolated from the ideas of 'limbo" which is totally unfair to parents who already suffer from the natural loss of their baby.From untrue statements that their baby is now suffering,that they are not with God and they will never see their babies again;because they are not in Heaven etc.etc.The fact is WE DO NOT KNOW!
Saying that babies who die without baptism will not gain a supernatural vision of God says nothing at all about whether they will be able to see their parents with natural vision, or know God on a natural level.
 
… Now would you please answer mine? What is it about traditional Roman Catholicism is it that you guys are afraid of and hate so much?
You beg the question.

I do not fear nor hate Latin Catholicism. 🙂 I don’t know why you might think so.

I did answer your question, I said "I really enjoy the discussions here. etc. "

In fact I read them all the time.

The only reason I was moved to post yesterday was when you made this comment : "That child still has that horrible stain … ".

Wow.

However, I have finished with this discussion. You have made your position perfectly clear as have I.
 
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…nfants_en.html 👍

Thank you pnewton for this link–if I knew of this statement of views —well I would never have posted anything-:D–a bit longwinded but worth the read;if anyone here has not read it.It basically reflects a lot of the ideas expressed in this thread.The document finishes up with a positive note of hope that unbaptised infants do go to Heaven.It is my gut feeling or “the sense of the faithful” that limbo is more of a “theological” position than a reality for unbaptised infants.“there are many rooms in My Fathers’House”

This is the age of Divine Mercy–Jesus I Hope and Trust in your Mercy!

I have no more to add pnewton’s link covers it all beautifully–thank you again.That is what I like about Catholic Answers there is a great knowledge to be had here-thank God.
 
The only reason I was moved to post yesterday was when you made this comment : "That child still has that horrible stain … ".

Wow.
So I guess the child doesn’t have a horrible stain from original sin. :hmmm:

Apparently there’s no need for baptism, then! Since baptism doesn’t remove the effects of original sin such as bodily death or concupiscence, and you think it doesn’t remove any stain that afflicted the soul’s everlasting fate, then it’s really nothing more than a symbolic rite of initiation, eh?
 
“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?”

St. Ephrem, Father and Doctor of the Church (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])

“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”

St. Ambrose of Milan, Father and Doctor of the Church (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).

The Latin for stain is ‘macula’ thus Immaculata (thanks C.A.). And so it is perfectly traditional and proper to refer to ‘original sin’ as a stain.

“Unless a man be born again through water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant; not the one prevented by necessity.”

St. Ambrose of Milan, Father and Doctor of the Church (Abraham 2,11:79 – AD 387)

Canon 2: Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mother’s wombs should not be Baptized. . . let him be anathema."

Council of Carthage

Canon 7: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians"

Council of Carthage V (A.D. 401)

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another.’

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Father of the Church (Letters 64:5 [A.D. 253]).

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3).

Council of Mileum II [A.D. 416]

‘Every soul is enrolled in Adam until it is enrolled anew in Christ; it is impure. . . and because impure, sinful, responsible also for the stain of the flesh with which it is united.’

Tertullian (ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D.)
 
'I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think. I do not think that many priests are saved, but that those who perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. . .

Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be strong in his teaching, patient, and hold fast to the faithful word which is according to doctrine? What care and pains does this require! Moreover, he is answerable for the sins of others. To pass over everything else: If but one soul dies without Baptism, does it not entirely endanger his own salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil that it is impossible to express it in words. For if the salvation of that soul was of such value that the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of how great a punishment must the losing of it bring.’

St. John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church
 
You beg the question.

I do not fear nor hate Latin Catholicism. 🙂 I don’t know why you might think so.

I did answer your question, I said "I really enjoy the discussions here. etc. "

In fact I read them all the time.

**The only reason I was moved to post yesterday was when you made this comment : "That child still has that horrible stain … ".

Wow.
**
However, I have finished with this discussion. You have made your position perfectly clear as have I.
**The only reason I was moved to post yesterday was when you made this comment : "That child still has that horrible stain … ".

Wow
**
Wow indeed. That stain is what Baptism removes. That is the reality behind baptism. That is solid Catholic teaching, handed down for centuries. Sorry if it does not meet your standards and you do not agree with it.

As far as position you are quite right. I am Catholic and you are Orthodox. I believe what my Church teaches as do you believe what yours does. I guess…

Perhaps I should find an Orthodox Forum somewhere and slink around taking potshots at what they believe.:hmmm:

But then again, no, there is really no reason to lower myself to that level. There are already enough people floating around who apparently feel the need to do so
 
*OK, I must really be missing the point of this thread going on and on and on and on…

If someone could, please explain for me how any of what is being quoted or expressed here proves that the document “THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED” goes against Christ the unchanging Truth?
Or how the International Theological Commission in putting this document together went against **the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and did not rely utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” **(Jn 16:13),

Maybe I will understand more clearly what some of you are trying to say or imply.
As of right now I still do not see how any of what a few of you quote proves that the International Theological Commission goes against that one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and how they did not rely utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top