Limbo

[Mary_Gail_36]

*Dear javl and surrritter,

I found this out when I google the CAF site.

This is the link to the thread that I found it on, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=418911* Title of thread is “Life begins at conception belief.”

The following quote is taken from post # 4

I do not know what the reference is to this “claimed” quote of St. Augustine. Maybe you would know and could share it with us?

I believe that when I did the google search there are also references to St. Thomas Aquinas having this belief also. Again I do not have the resources to verify this.

If you check the link that it came from, it is not an Orthodox Catholic site. St. Augustine never thougth abortion was not a sin.

Sigh…that I guess might be a problem with internet sites. If you don’t know something, you can easily find the wrong answer.

I’m not an Augustinian or Thomist theologian. Perhaps there is some one on this site who can help you better than I could.

 

[simple_soul]

If you check the link that it came from, it is not an Orthodox Catholic site. St. Augustine never thought abortion was not a sin.

Sigh…that I guess might be a problem with INTERNET sites. If you don’t know something, you can easily find the wrong answer.

I’m not an Augustinian or Thomist theologian. Perhaps there is some one on this site who can help you better than I could.

*Dear Mary Gail,

I know St. Augustine never thought abortion was not a sin. What I am looking to understand is did he or did he not write that “a human soul cannot live in an unformed body” and was this understanding ever taught by him or the church?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

*Dear Mary Gail,

I know St. Augustine never thought abortion was not a sin. What I am looking to understand is did he or did he not write that “a human soul cannot live in an unformed body” and was this understanding ever taught by him or the church?

I’m sorry, simple soul, I didn’t mean you thought so. The website in the quote seems to offer that as proof of abortion being not considered sinful.

 

[surritter]

An April 21 Associated Press article by Nicole Winfield quotes Fr. Richard McBrien (professor of theology at Notre Dame and noted dissenter) as saying, “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that **everyone is born in the state of grace **. . . Baptism does not exist to wipe away the ‘stain’ of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church.” catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0710fea4.asp
This demonstrates the end result of such thinking.

It’s interesting that you extract this quote from a This Rock article which actually goes on to support my very point! (Did you bother to read it, or did you just rub your hands with glee at the mention of notorious dissenter McBrien?)
You cling to the idea that limbo MUST exist, yet the article and the ITC document it refers to spell out precisely why we MAY hope – neither position is formally defined, however. (Which makes this thread so much fun!)

 

[simple_soul]

I’m sorry, simple soul, I didn’t mean you thought so. The website in the quote seems to offer that as proof of abortion being not considered sinful.

*Dear Mary Gail,
No need to apologize, I believe you didn’t mean I thought that way. I just wanted to clarify for you and others exactly what it is I am questioning about that statement. I was not very clear about it in the previous post.

 

[Javl]

I also am not a theologian, but in reading St. Augustines writings again I still cannot find that statement that is attributed to him, nor any reference to it. It is possible that it may have been purged from the book. I will try to obtain an earlier copy to check.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that St Augustine would issue such a statement and that St Thomas would agree with it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Benadam]

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm

Excerpt:

if one asserts that Thomas believed that there was no human soul prior to 40-80 days, nevertheless, it must also be admitted that he did not believe this granted permission to abort the unborn child during that period of time. Thomas was against abortion in all cases, as were all the rest of the Church’s Fathers and medieval theologians, as we will see momentarily. The only view he might have held is, if a pre-40-80 day old fetus (i.e., an “unanimated” fetus) was inadvertently killed by a striking of the mother, the person responsible for the incident would not be guilty of homicide. In reference to Exodus 21:22-23, Thomas writes:

He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide, especially seeing that death is the natural result of such a blow. (Summa Theologica, Q. 64, Art. 8, Reply to Obj. 2).

 

[una_fides]

No one deserved it no matter what, how , when our life was lived. Your argument supports the reason to persue a theological reason to believe that they have not been denied what no one desrved.

I think you are missing the point I was making. I am saying that because it is not deserved you cannot expect that infants have to be given the ability to use their wills.

 

[una_fides]

Have angels written anything on the Big Bang theory or how the universe began?

They do not need to write anything. They have perfect knowledge as to the origins of the universe. How many humans have such knowledge? Such theories you propose are constantly modified and changed. I am at a loss really for what you are tying to argue here. Are you trying to say that because humans write theories on the origin of the universe that they are thereby smarter than angels who have first hand knowledge of the creation itself?

 

[una_fides]

*Dear una fides,

Could you please supply the source of Pope Pius XII’s explanation?
Not that I am disputing that he said it, I would just like to read it.

I would also not that I heard some were that it was St. Augustine believed in and taught about “delayed ensoulment”. He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 3 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). Did St Augustin really believe and teach this and if so why do we not still believe and teach this?
*

The source for Pope Pius XII’s quote has been provided earlier in this thread. If you are unable to look it up, let me know, and I will repost it for you.

Regarding Augustine, I am doubtful that he believed or taught such things, but regardless, no one at that time knew when an infant actually started to live, or so I’ve heard. I’ve heard it said that popular belief at the time was that it was at “quickening” that an infant became alive, which would have been at the point when one could first feel the baby kick or move around. At this point, I have not read Augustine on this matter, so it is still hearsay. Nevertheless, neither Augustine nor any other Church father taught that abortion was licit action. What does this question have to do with limbo?

 

[Benadam]

I think you are missing the point I was making. I am saying that because it is not deserved you cannot expect that infants have to be given the ability to use their wills.

Of course we do not have expectations of God. This only inhibits union with Him. I understood your point and should have articulated that. It’s evident in how God has related to man throughout Salvation History that He isn’t much concerned with what we desrve but what is good for us and what is deserved is only relative to our refusal to accept what is good.

This is expressed well when the Church uses this statement " We entrust them to the Mercy of God"

The Church isn’t much concerned about what is desrved but what can be hoped for. What can be hoped for within the boundaries set by Divine revelation is expanded as we understand our selves more. This activity between man and God is not fixed but evolving as Christ reveals man to himself.

 

[sidbrown]

They do not need to write anything. They have perfect knowledge as to the origins of the universe. How many humans have such knowledge? Such theories you propose are constantly modified and changed. I am at a loss really for what you are tying to argue here. Are you trying to say that because humans write theories on the origin of the universe that they are thereby smarter than angels who have first hand knowledge of the creation itself?

I don;t see the verification of the statement that angels have perfect knowledge of the origins of the universe?

 

[una_fides]

It’s interesting that you extract this quote from a This Rock article which actually goes on to support my very point! (Did you bother to read it, or did you just rub your hands with glee at the mention of notorious dissenter McBrien?)
You cling to the idea that limbo MUST exist, yet the article and the ITC document it refers to spell out precisely why we MAY hope – neither position is formally defined, however. (Which makes this thread so much fun!)

Yes, I did read the full document. And yes, neither position has been infallibly defined, though limbo has been “formally” taught for quite some time. Furthermore, one position has 2000 years of teaching tradition behind it and the other cannot be found anywhere as being taught by Catholics or entertained by the Church until recent years after the influx of modernism. (Yes, I realize I’ve probably repeated this fact on this thread about 10x now. )

 

[una_fides]

I don;t see the verification of the statement that angels have perfect knowledge of the origins of the universe?

The angels were there and have an exponentially greater degree of knowledge than you or I. They are of a higher created order than humans. Do you believe what the Church teaches concerning the angels? And what does this have to do with limbo?

 

[una_fides]

What can be hoped for within the boundaries set by Divine revelation is expanded as we understand our selves more. This activity between man and God is not fixed but evolving as Christ reveals man to himself.

Benadam, I am assuming that you gathered that last phrase from some modern source unknowing of its theological implications. I post this to instruct you in case you were not aware:

             Pope St. Pius X, *Oath Against Modernism*:

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.” …
“The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. “
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

             Vatican I – Infallible

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

 

[simple_soul]

The source for Pope Pius XII’s quote has been provided earlier in this thread. If you are unable to look it up, let me know, and I will repost it for you.

Regarding Augustine, I am doubtful that he believed or taught such things, **but regardless, no one at that time knew when an infant actually started to live, **or so I’ve heard. I’ve heard it said that popular belief at the time was that it was at “quickening” that an infant became alive, which would have been at the point when one could first feel the baby kick or move around. At this point, I have not read Augustine on this matter, so it is still hearsay. Nevertheless, neither Augustine nor any other Church father taught that abortion was licit action. What does this question have to do with limbo?

*Dear Una Fides,

You may have missed my post clarifying my question.
I am not questioning if the Church fathers ever taught that abortion was licit.
What I am trying to clarify is if St. Augustine or any other Church father ever taught that “a human soul cannot live in an unformed body” and was this understanding ever taught by the church. Do you know if any of them did? If they did, did the Church follow and teach this understanding?

In reference to the part I bolded do you know what the Church currently teaches about when an infant acctually starts to live?

 

[una_fides]

*Dear Una Fides,

You may have missed my post clarifying my question.
I am not questioning if the Church fathers ever taught that abortion was licit.
What I am trying to clarify is if St. Augustine or any other Church father or the church herself ever taught that “a human soul cannot live in an unformed body*” and was this understanding ever taught by him or the church. Do you know if any of them did?

In reference to the part I bolded do you know what the Church currently teaches about when an infant acctually starts to live?

At the moment of conception. The soul is created and united with the body at conception. The Church has decided this issue.

 

[simple_soul]

At the moment of conception. The soul is created and united with the body at conception. The Church has decided this issue.

Do you know when the Church decided this issue?

 

[una_fides]

Do you know when the Church decided this issue?

Not sure when it was first officially decided. I know for sure it was set in stone by 1679

Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II) *
[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]
35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion. (Denzinger 1185).

 

[Benadam]

Benadam, I am assuming that you gathered that last phrase from some modern source unknowing of its theological implications. I post this to instruct you in case you were not aware:

Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism:
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.” …
“The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. “
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

Vatican I – Infallible
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

All I can say is that you entirely missed the meaning of what I wrote. " within the boundaries set by divine revelation" covers your objection. I haven’t written anything that that would violate the sense of any doctrin or dogma. Before you accuse of such ignorance you should present the doctrin or dogma that is violated. Christ reveals man to himself. You know what happens after that? Man understands his relationship with God and God in a deeper way. You know what happens after that? We understand ourselves more etc etc. If the sense of doctrin or dogma does suffer a distortion the direction that the theological developement takes is towards a different faith. We must also be aware of when that isn’t happening because if we say it is and it isn’t we may inhibit what the Lord wishes us to know and fail to do and be what God would want. So I ask the sense of which doctrin has been violated by what I’ve posted? If you can’t present evidence for that you shouldn’t bring it up. In fact if we adhered to your perspective concerning doctrin and dogma Catholic theology would not be developemental and would be stagnant. The Church teaches that it’s a worthwhile persuit for theologians to seek a reason to hope that babies that die without water Baptism have a way to heaven. This isn’t the Church seeking a theological reason to believe that all babies who die that way go to heaven but that heaven isn’t impossible .