What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Pug]

if a baby is deprived of the beatific vision but he doesnt know what he is missing is it so bad?

If a rock is perfectly happy as a rock, and it never crosses his mind that he might have been a butterfly or something else, then yes, the rock is probably not suffering in any way that he recognizes as suffering for lack of being a butterfly.

If, however, the rock is not perfectly happy as a rock, perhaps because he is a cracked rock, and experiences some suffering, then the rock might start to wondering about things. The rock might reason that if he had been born with wings to elevate his halves together, his suffering would be lessened. This rock, even if he has never heard of a butterfly so he can’t really know what he is missing, might still think his situation is bad, or at least needs improvement.

However, what if I am a butterfly looking at the rock, and I know the rock was made to eventually be a butterfly. Might I not see this rock as tragic, regardless of the subjective suffering or lack thereof of the rock?

I mention cracked rocks on account of the baby having a “fallen” nature. This is not fixed if the baby retains original sin. I wonder if this means the baby will lack the preternatural gift of integrity.

 

[PAboy57]

Our God is one of love, mercy and justice.

I don’t know where the babies go but I don’t think He would harm them in any way.

I do know who I would want the Lord to ask to babysit them for awhile.

 

[Gregory_I]

Tommy,

I am reading your answers carefully, and they seem to contain one fault: They do not address the issue. They explain it away.

What are the effects of Original sin, as the dogmas state?

The context in which Pope Eugene IV Explained what he did does not deter from what he says: THere is no remedy for infants other than sacramental baptism. He could be discussing the value of italian currency, it doesn’t matter. The fact is that he said what he said and it is clear what he meant when he said it:

“…no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God”

Speaks for itself.

Likewise, St. Augustines View has been the view of the church for the past 1600 years. The ONLY difference made is in interpreting his phrase: “lightest punishment” as equivalent with the loss of the beatific vision, as first proposed by Peter Abelard and accepted by Pope Innocent III. Aquinas went on to speculate further about natural happiness, and this is indeed speculation, but it does not detract from the doctrinal base: Infants dying without baptism do not see God; except in cases of martyrdom, where a child was killed specifically on behalf of Christ.

Similarly, Pope St. Innocent I can be debating about whether hyenas are spotted or striped, it doesn’t matter: he SAID in a document that is part of the Authentic Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (It’s addressed to the Bishops, obviously universal in scope):

“The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish.”

***This is Church teaching. ***

AS is stated in the 4th canon of the 5th session of the Council of Trent on Original Sin:

1. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it.** For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**

THis last phrase of Christ is given in the context of a canon about infants, therefore the context denotes that phrase as applying to THEM as much as the rest of humanity: WIthout Baptism, they do not see the Face of God.

Likewise the Roman Catechism, issued and PRomulgated by Pope St. Pius V, which is STILL par tof the Ordinary and universal magisterium of the church (since we already decided Catechisms are magisterial documents ) clearly states:

“Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ the Lord would have withheld the Sacrament and grace of Baptism from children, of whom He said: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such; ° whom also He embraced, upon whom He imposed hands, to whom He gave His blessing.”

It’s funny that this same gospel passage is used in Par. 1261 of the CCC as a reason why they could come to him WITHOUT baptism, when in the Roman Catechism, it is used in exactly the opposite sense: Infants cannot come to God in any other way than baptism, and so this passage is used to show he desires baptism for them!

Also from the Roman Catechism:
“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.”

So, the Authority of Augustine as a doctor teaches unbaptized children do not enter into heaven, the ordinary magisterial teaching of the popes says unbaptized infants do not enter into heaven, the dogmas of trent and florence both infer and DEMAND this interpretation in order to be logically consistent, The XVI Council of Carthage, endorsed and proclaimed by the highest Magisterial office, the Papacy, says this position, which basically makes it infallible, the constant teaching of the churches theologians apart from their speculation on limbo teach this, Aquinas most of all, of who more than one POpe has said that to deviate from his theology is to ever be suspect as holding the true faith, the Catechisms issued by the Ordinary Magisterium and the local catechisms up until modern times have taught it…What part of this can you not chew on?

The past 50 years of theological speculation on this issue is like trying to hold the red sea back with a broom; ridiculous.

 

[StTommyMore]

With all due respect , my friend, you mist learn about interpreting Church documents. You cannot simply take words separate from context. Look at issues being addressed, why councils were called, the landscape of Christianity at the time, etc. To simply say “Trent says…” without looking at the circumstances surrounding Trent is utterly foolish, but this has been your basic hermeneutic…

 

[Gregory_I]

No, hang on, I undertand how context is important for understanding the meaning of phrases and such, like in scripture study. But that is only in certain instances where context is vague; and the context is not always relevant to the fact that somethign was said, and was meant.

i.e. If someone were to say: “The Bible says there is no God!” see, “…There is no God…” book of psalms. Totally ignoring the fact that what the whole sentence says is : “The fool says in his heart there is no God, they are all corrupt, etc.”

But No such thing is going on with Trent and Florence and the COnstant Magisterial Teaching of the Popes. IF One Pope is talking about a ferrari: " Oh, yeah, I got this new ferrari, and it runs like a champ! Which reminds me, unbaptized babies do not enter heaven. But this ferrari is awesome!" The context is irreleveant because he still made a clear statement about a clear topic with a clear end in a way that reflects his teaching authority.

Please explain to me how your explanations of context somehow take away the clear meaning of the texts in question? SO what if they were talking about not delaying baptism, is BECAUSE infants have no salvation apart from baptism. THat is clearly stated, SO I cannot see what you have to go against.

Magisterial DOcuments are NOT SUBJECT to in-depth reinterpretation. THey are meant to CLARIFY an issue, and I insist that they DO. If you insist I need to constantly reinterpret everything the church says, how does it say anything at all?

FOr example, doctrine develops about hell, and who goes there. It hardens and is crystallized into dogma, with each statement that came before clarifying more than the last. The dogma is the final irreformable conclusion on at least one aspect of the matter at hand. There is NO DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA. THere is development of doctrine INTO dogma. But dogmas are not subject to reinterpretation, they mean what they say and ONLY what they say. If they did not, how could the church teach clearly?

You seem to presume that once a dogma is defined that there is (or at least may be) an understanding and meaning which goes beyond the actual words of the dogmatic formula. This very notion has been solemnly condemned by the Church.
When the Church defines a dogma, in this very act (of defining) she is giving to us the EXACT way we are to believe it, understand it, profess it, spread and defend it. In other words, she IS giving us the one and only interpretation by which we must believe and understand it. Vatican I defined for us that dogmas are to be believed precisely as they are declared and that **the Church “understands her dogmas by the very words she has once declared, and there must never be a recession from this meaning…” **(“Dei Filius”, ch.3 & canon 3). And the Church has solemnly condemned the notion that dogmas have meaning which go beyond the words of the dogmatic formula:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a ***recession from that meaning ***under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” [Denzinger 1800]

St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane- Syllabus of Errors of Modernists:
"22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.–***condemned ***
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.–condemned
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.–condemned
(see Lamentabili, #22,26,54,64 and Pascendi: Denzinger 2079-81, 2087 promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1907).

WHat is said is meant, and what is meant is said. Dogmas mean what they do on their face. THe oRdinary Magisterium is a TEACHING office. IF you have to continually reinterpret it, as you seem to think you need to do, and then reinterpret that in order to make it fit this and reinterpret that, then what good is it?

The Church clearly teaches what is meant.

So, the Authority of Augustine as a doctor teaches unbaptized children do not enter into heaven, the ordinary magisterial teaching of the popes says unbaptized infants do not enter into heaven, the dogmas of trent and florence both infer and DEMAND this interpretation in order to be logically consistent, The XVI Council of Carthage, endorsed and proclaimed by the highest Magisterial office, the Papacy, says this position, which basically makes it infallible, the constant teaching of the churches theologians apart from their speculation on limbo teach this, Aquinas most of all, of who more than one POpe has said that to deviate from his theology is to ever be suspect as holding the true faith, the Catechisms issued by the Ordinary Magisterium and the local catechisms up until modern times have taught it…What part of this can you not chew on?

The past 50 years of theological speculation on this issue is like trying to hold the red sea back with a broom; ridiculous.

 

[StTommyMore]

No, hang on, I undertand how context is important for understanding the meaning of phrases and such, like in scripture study. But that is only in certain instances where context is vague; and the context is not always relevant to the fact that somethign was said, and was meant.

i.e. If someone were to say: “The Bible says there is no God!” see, “…There is no God…” book of psalms. Totally ignoring the fact that what the whole sentence says is : “The fool says in his heart there is no God, they are all corrupt, etc.”

But No such thing is going on with Trent and Florence and the COnstant Magisterial Teaching of the Popes. IF One Pope is talking about a ferrari: " Oh, yeah, I got this new ferrari, and it runs like a champ! Which reminds me, unbaptized babies do not enter heaven. But this ferrari is awesome!" The context is irreleveant because he still made a clear statement about a clear topic with a clear end in a way that reflects his teaching authority.

Please explain to me how your explanations of context somehow take away the clear meaning of the texts in question? SO what if they were talking about not delaying baptism, is BECAUSE infants have no salvation apart from baptism. THat is clearly stated, SO I cannot see what you have to go against.

Magisterial DOcuments are NOT SUBJECT to in-depth reinterpretation. THey are meant to CLARIFY an issue, and I insist that they DO. If you insist I need to constantly reinterpret everything the church says, how does it say anything at all?

FOr example, doctrine develops about hell, and who goes there. It hardens and is crystallized into dogma, with each statement that came before clarifying more than the last. The dogma is the final irreformable conclusion on at least one aspect of the matter at hand. There is NO DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA. THere is development of doctrine INTO dogma. But dogmas are not subject to reinterpretation, they mean what they say and ONLY what they say. If they did not, how could the church teach clearly?

You seem to presume that once a dogma is defined that there is (or at least may be) an understanding and meaning which goes beyond the actual words of the dogmatic formula. This very notion has been solemnly condemned by the Church.
When the Church defines a dogma, in this very act (of defining) she is giving to us the EXACT way we are to believe it, understand it, profess it, spread and defend it. In other words, she IS giving us the one and only interpretation by which we must believe and understand it. Vatican I defined for us that dogmas are to be believed precisely as they are declared and that **the Church “understands her dogmas by the very words she has once declared, and there must never be a recession from this meaning…” **(“Dei Filius”, ch.3 & canon 3). And the Church has solemnly condemned the notion that dogmas have meaning which go beyond the words of the dogmatic formula:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a ***recession from that meaning ***under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” [Denzinger 1800]

St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane- Syllabus of Errors of Modernists:
"22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.–***condemned ***
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.–condemned
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.–condemned
(see Lamentabili, #22,26,54,64 and Pascendi: Denzinger 2079-81, 2087 promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1907).

WHat is said is meant, and what is meant is said. Dogmas mean what they do on their face. THe oRdinary Magisterium is a TEACHING office. IF you have to continually reinterpret it, as you seem to think you need to do, and then reinterpret that in order to make it fit this and reinterpret that, then what good is it?

The Church clearly teaches what is meant.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I am finished with this debate. You need to learn what is meant by “living Magisterium”.

 

[NeelyAnn]

No, hang on, I undertand how context is important for understanding the meaning of phrases and such, like in scripture study. But that is only in certain instances where context is vague; and the context is not always relevant to the fact that somethign was said, and was meant.

i.e. If someone were to say: “The Bible says there is no God!” see, “…There is no God…” book of psalms. Totally ignoring the fact that what the whole sentence says is : “The fool says in his heart there is no God, they are all corrupt, etc.”

But No such thing is going on with Trent and Florence and the COnstant Magisterial Teaching of the Popes. IF One Pope is talking about a ferrari: " Oh, yeah, I got this new ferrari, and it runs like a champ! Which reminds me, unbaptized babies do not enter heaven. But this ferrari is awesome!" The context is irreleveant because he still made a clear statement about a clear topic with a clear end in a way that reflects his teaching authority.

Please explain to me how your explanations of context somehow take away the clear meaning of the texts in question? SO what if they were talking about not delaying baptism, is BECAUSE infants have no salvation apart from baptism. THat is clearly stated, SO I cannot see what you have to go against.

Magisterial DOcuments are NOT SUBJECT to in-depth reinterpretation. THey are meant to CLARIFY an issue, and I insist that they DO. If you insist I need to constantly reinterpret everything the church says, how does it say anything at all?

FOr example, doctrine develops about hell, and who goes there. It hardens and is crystallized into dogma, with each statement that came before clarifying more than the last. The dogma is the final irreformable conclusion on at least one aspect of the matter at hand. There is NO DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA. THere is development of doctrine INTO dogma. But dogmas are not subject to reinterpretation, they mean what they say and ONLY what they say. If they did not, how could the church teach clearly?

You seem to presume that once a dogma is defined that there is (or at least may be) an understanding and meaning which goes beyond the actual words of the dogmatic formula. This very notion has been solemnly condemned by the Church.
When the Church defines a dogma, in this very act (of defining) she is giving to us the EXACT way we are to believe it, understand it, profess it, spread and defend it. In other words, she IS giving us the one and only interpretation by which we must believe and understand it. Vatican I defined for us that dogmas are to be believed precisely as they are declared and that **the Church “understands her dogmas by the very words she has once declared, and there must never be a recession from this meaning…” **(“Dei Filius”, ch.3 & canon 3). And the Church has solemnly condemned the notion that dogmas have meaning which go beyond the words of the dogmatic formula:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a ***recession from that meaning ***under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” [Denzinger 1800]

St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane- Syllabus of Errors of Modernists:
"22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.–***condemned ***
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.–condemned
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.–condemned
(see Lamentabili, #22,26,54,64 and Pascendi: Denzinger 2079-81, 2087 promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1907).

WHat is said is meant, and what is meant is said. Dogmas mean what they do on their face. THe oRdinary Magisterium is a TEACHING office. IF you have to continually reinterpret it, as you seem to think you need to do, and then reinterpret that in order to make it fit this and reinterpret that, then what good is it?

The Church clearly teaches what is meant.

Excellent post. I want to commend you for your efforts in clearly demonstrating what the Church teaches in this thread. It’s a shame that so many people today reject what the Church has always taught.

 

[Gregory_I]

Tommy, though you bow out now, you are welcome back when your head is cool.
My basic Hermeneutic is one of taking the dogmas of the church at face value, as well as its Ordinary Magisterial teaching. THis is how it was written, this is how it is to be understood, especially the dogmas. Anytime something ends in anathema, you best take it under advisement.

THanks NeelyANN. I simply try to echo the fathers, and the constant teaching of the church in this regard, which is that of St. Augustine:

“If you want to be a Catholic do no believe, do no say, and do not teach that infants carried off by death before they are baptized can attain the remission of original sin.”
-Saint Augustine, Father, Doctor, and Bishop of the Church, On the Soul and its Origin Book II

 

[PAboy57]

Dear Thread,

I so much appreciate fellow Catholics so dedicated to notify others of specific Church teaching. Being as learned as you are have some of you considered your approach?

My perception is that you are more concerned with your personal victory than teaching correct subject matter. As a Catholic we must also be charitable in our actions or writings in this case. In fact this whole thread went red hot more than not and that isn’t good for any of us, with or without the right subject matter to offer. I understand that this is a very emotional subject matter.

Imagine those of other faiths reading how aggressive some of these posts were. They would think that while we are touting the CCC, Church Doctors, etc that we don’t really care about each other one bit. Personal triumph was the goal rather than creating a comfortable learning environment.

We are talking about innocent babies, through no fault of their own, did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Most people’s heart, even those somewhat closed to the truth, will open for such an innocent being and hope for the best possible outcome.

Let’s remember these innocent children in our prayers often and how many times our God went out of His way to save so many of His chosen people.

I’m going to 4pm Mass today and I plan to offer Mass and my prayers for these innocent babies that God loves so much. Please join me this weekend and offer prayers.

Thank you for sharing so much history and valuable information. God Bless.

 

[TomD123]

Dear Thread,

I so much appreciate fellow Catholics so dedicated to notify others of specific Church teaching. Being as learned as you are have some of you considered your approach?

My perception is that you are more concerned with your personal victory than teaching correct subject matter. As a Catholic we must also be charitable in our actions or writings in this case. In fact this whole thread went red hot more than not and that isn’t good for any of us, with or without the right subject matter to offer. I understand that this is a very emotional subject matter.

Imagine those of other faiths reading how aggressive some of these posts were. They would think that while we are touting the CCC, Church Doctors, etc that we don’t really care about each other one bit. Personal triumph was the goal rather than creating a comfortable learning environment.

We are talking about innocent babies, through no fault of their own, did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Most people’s heart, even those somewhat closed to the truth, will open for such an innocent being and hope for the best possible outcome.

Let’s remember these innocent children in our prayers often and how many times our God went out of His way to save so many of His chosen people.

I’m going to 4pm Mass today and I plan to offer Mass and my prayers for these innocent babies that God loves so much. Please join me this weekend and offer prayers.

Thank you for sharing so much history and valuable information. God Bless.

Agree 100%

 

[Gregory_I]

OK, PAboy, because some of us are zealous for the truth of God, does not mean all we care about is personal victory. In what can I be victorious? I did not propose the teaching of the church. Any “victory” on my behalf is the church’s triumph in her doctrine, not my own. I simply present it. I have clearly modified some of my positions in the course of this thread, so for me it has been a learning experience to a degree.

THis is how dialogue works. I have never been hot at anyone here personally, although I think a few have been at me. If I hear something that contradicts the dogmas and constant teaching of the church, I jump on it. Because I am sick of living in a predominantly liberal Catholic Church, so I hope to inform people on the most basic of all Doctrines: Original Sin.

THis is what this thread is all about: Original sin, and its effects.

See, the mistake you are making PAboy is to assume zeal is anger and that Charity means making people feel good about themselves.

That is a mistake, if a person is spreading the wrong message, they need to be told they are wrong, and corrected: That is TRUE charity, loving your brother enough to want for him what you have: The truth. Not because “I HAVE IT ALONE AS MYSELF”. But Because The Church in her Ordinary Magisterium and her dogmas has ruled and taught consistently: and 50 years of undermining liberal theological speculation won’t change that.

I submit for your consideration, the passage from the Book “Liberalism is a Sin.” You can find it on liberalismisasin.com/ It IS a Sedevacan-ist website, so take no note of anything but the book, because it is a historical document. I myself no longer hold the Sede view.

“He [the liberal catholic] subjects God’s authority to the scrutiny of his reason, and not his reason to God’s authority. He accepts revelation not on account of the infallible revealer, but because of the “infallible” receiver.”

“He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of (42) faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance. The Syllabus of Pius IX is a nightmare to them, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh and peremptory document, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and if accepted, must be taken in a very modified sense. The Ultramontane interpretation is violent and extreme, and does much more harm than good by driving back the well disposed at such a show of illiberality.”

"Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium, hurled by Liberal votaries of all degrees at Ultramontanes. Are not Liberals our neighbors like other men? Do we not owe to them the same charity we apply to others? Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us, harsh and uncharitable, in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the word charity signifies.

The catechism, that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom (103) and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: “To love is to wish good to him whom we love.” To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase “for the love of God.”

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God."

 

[StTommyMore]

It is a sign of a weak argument if it is only bolstered by volume.

 

[PAboy57]

OK, PAboy, because some of us are zealous for the truth of God, does not mean all we care about is personal victory. In what can I be victorious? I did not propose the teaching of the church. Any “victory” on my behalf is the church’s triumph in her doctrine, not my own. I simply present it. I have clearly modified some of my positions in the course of this thread, so for me it has been a learning experience to a degree.

THis is how dialogue works. I have never been hot at anyone here personally, although I think a few have been at me. If I hear something that contradicts the dogmas and constant teaching of the church, I jump on it. Because I am sick of living in a predominantly liberal Catholic Church, so I hope to inform people on the most basic of all Doctrines: Original Sin.

THis is what this thread is all about: Original sin, and its effects.

See, the mistake you are making PAboy is to assume zeal is anger and that Charity means making people feel good about themselves.

That is a mistake, if a person is spreading the wrong message, they need to be told they are wrong, and corrected: That is TRUE charity, loving your brother enough to want for him what you have: The truth. Not because “I HAVE IT ALONE AS MYSELF”. But Because The Church in her Ordinary Magisterium and her dogmas has ruled and taught consistently: and 50 years of undermining liberal theological speculation won’t change that.

I submit for your consideration, the passage from the Book “Liberalism is a Sin.” You can find it on liberalismisasin.com/ It IS a Sedevacan-ist website, so take no note of anything but the book, because it is a historical document. I myself no longer hold the Sede view.

“He [the liberal catholic] subjects God’s authority to the scrutiny of his reason, and not his reason to God’s authority. He accepts revelation not on account of the infallible revealer, but because of the “infallible” receiver.”

“He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of (42) faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance. The Syllabus of Pius IX is a nightmare to them, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh and peremptory document, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and if accepted, must be taken in a very modified sense. The Ultramontane interpretation is violent and extreme, and does much more harm than good by driving back the well disposed at such a show of illiberality.”

"Narrow! Intolerant! Uncompromising! These are the epithets of odium, hurled by Liberal votaries of all degrees at Ultramontanes. Are not Liberals our neighbors like other men? The catechism, that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom (103) and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: “To love is to wish good to him whom we love.” To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase “for the love of God.”

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God."

Sir,

Out of charity I will respond, only once, to your document that is clearly a rant. I strongly urge you to tone down your messages. We do not subscribe to a 50 year battle within the Church. You may want to discuss Church leadership with your parish priest.

You may want to jump on anything against Church Dogma but the way you do it is offensive and will completely make people avoid you. Your use of copying from improper literature is a shame and embarrassing. You have no internet etiquet and using all of the huge fonts with different colors is childish. Please clean up your act so you will be able to enjoy CAF and continue to learn about the Catholic Faith.

Good luck and may God Bless you.

 

[Gregory_I]

DO you really think that is all I have to say? lol. But what’s the good of posting long posts? Nobody reads them. And it gets too complicated to put in snippets, so I do the best I can Tommy. God bless you.

Feel free to jump back in when you want.

Another sign of constant church teaching:

The XVI Council of Carthage was Promulgated by Pope Zosimus un 418 and received at the ecumenical council of Ephesus, thus giving it both papal and ecumenical sanction, making its teaching part of the received teaching of the church.

“Having received the Acts of the Council of Carthage, Zosimus sent to all the bishops of the world his famous “Epistola tractoria” (418) of which unfortunately only fragments have come down to us. This papal encyclical, a lengthy document, gives a minute account of the entire “causa Caelestii et Pelagii”, from whose works it quotes abundantly, and categorically demands the condemnation of Pelagianism as a heresy. The assertion that every bishop of the world was obliged to confirm this circular by his own signature, cannot be proved, it is more probable that the bishops were required to transmit to Rome a written agreement; if a bishop refused to sign, he was deposed from his office and banished.” newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

The following canon from the XVI Council of Carthage condemns the Pelagian doctrine of infant salvation and professes that unbaptised infants are punished for the guilt of original sin.

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”:** that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.** For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].

Traditionally it is held Zozimus published Carthage’s canons as his own. It is referred to in the Council of Ephesus:
The Tractoria was sent to the whole world:
” …Pope ZOZIMUS of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world…” (Ephesus;Denzinger 134) Not just to the eastern churches.
again:
“The same teacher ZOZIMUS trained us , who, when spoke to the whole world….” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)

Zosimus accepted the council of Carthage as his own and proclaimed it to the whole Church, thus making it infallible:
” ‘ We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God…have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops.’ ” This is the beginning of his “Tractoria” and it tells us ALL things are referred to African bishops and which was the Council of Carthage received this great praise:

***“Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage, [418 AD] we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own…” ***(Ephesus; Denzinger 136)

In other words, Because of his promulgation of the “Tractoria” The Council of Ephesus recognized its findings, and all contained therein, including the XVI Council of Carthage, as the official view of Rome, to be held by all.

Therefore The aobve canon is to be held to by all.

 

[Gregory_I]

Sorry.

 

[Lormar]

Excellent post. I want to commend you for your efforts in clearly demonstrating what the Church teaches in this thread. It’s a shame that so many people today reject what the Church has always taught.

NeelyAnn, I agree, and I want to also commend GregoryI for his most patient efforts.

Also, I would like to add that I think he has conducted himself most admirably during this discussion. There will always be those who think they can do better.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Gregory I,
Here is a very interesting article by Fr. John Hardon, SJ.

In light of this thread, what is your response to his message?

 

[Gregory_I]

I mostly agree with him. What he says here:

Understanding. Development of Catholic doctrine, however, is not only appropriation from human knowledge, not only adaptation to the needs of the times. It is also, and mainly, growth in the Church’s understanding of the mysteries of revelation that she has received as a heritage from Christ her master, whose first purpose on earth in time was to share with us the heavenly wisdom that God possessed from all eternity.

What he does not go on to say, and is not his fault, is that doctrine develops INTO Dogma, and once it BECOMES dogma, it becomes irreformable. At least the facet of the particular dogma being discussed that is dogmatized.

After that, it is not subject to any kind of re-interpretation. It means what it says, and says what it means.

I would also add what the Vatican I defined dogmatically:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Lso Pope St. Pius X condemned the idea that what is latent and immanent and implied in the past, develops into something different in the future, key word being DIFFERENT:

St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane- Syllabus of Errors of Modernists:
"22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. **They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.–condemned **

1. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.–condemned
2. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.–condemned
3. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.–condemned"

That’s My take on it.

 

[Indyann]

Gregory I,
Here is a very interesting article by Fr. John Hardon, SJ.

In light of this thread, what is your response to his message?

Thank you, for this link. Hits the nail squarely on the head.

Of course, we know that Father Hardon may not be “Catholic” enough for some on these threads.

 

[Gregory_I]