What is so objectionable about Limbo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
are you trying to make the point Baptism is not important? If God isn’t bound by the sacraments then why have them? Jesus was baptized you know. Or maybe you don’t.
 
All I ask for is evidence: I don’t believe sweeping generalizations unless they have the Authority of the magisterium;)

But seriously, it is not arrogance to ask for a source for your particular take on the faith. I have done nothing but provide source after source for my perspective. Why are you so upset that I questioned you?

THe Church is not simply a Visible and invisible institution, it is BOTH simultaneously: What our Church proclaims as Dogmas are bound as dogmas in heaven, and are considered as revealed by God, because the Church has the authority from Christ himself to Authoritatively issue definitive statements making revelation clear; Which decisions are binding on the hearts and consciences of the people.
 
StTommyMore said:
The problem is Trent and Florence do not say what you think they do. The established NORMS, bit they do not prohibit salvation without Baptism as an absolute. It is this kind of misinterpretation that leads to Feeneyism. You must stop thinking of the Church as strictly a visible institution. Although there is a visible institution, it is not ONLY a visible institution. But absolutizing baptism reduces it to simply that. If the Church is strictly institutional, then it is human only, without a divine component. BAptism is the normative means by which one is given salvific grace. But as God is not bound by the Sacraments, He may give this same grace to any whom He choses, baptized or not.
Click to expand...
I don’t even know how to undestand this.

Dogmas are NORMS? What does that even mean? THe clear sense of the Dogma defined by the canons are the infallible and irreformable sense in which the dogma in question is to be understood. THAT is the teaching of the church. 🙂

Vatican I

“Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

“For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. 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.”

"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."
 
Gregory_I said:
I don’t even know how to undestand this.

Dogmas are NORMS? What does that even mean? THe clear sense of the Dogma defined by the canons are the infallible and irreformable sense in which the dogma in question is to be understood. THAT is the teaching of the church. 🙂

Vatican I

“Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

“For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. 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.”

"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."
Click to expand...
Let me break it down for you. Dogmas are to be held aby all. They are infallible and irreformable. However A God is just, He does not hold people accountable for what they are not given. Catholics are held to a higher standard because we have the fullness of revelation. NO I am done. I really get tired of you trying to anathematize me, which seems to be your standard praxis “If any shall say anything opposed to my own narrow interpretation of dogmatic statements taken out of context, let him be anathema” This is why you are now being ignored. Well that, and you claim I have said thing which I have not. You claim I deny Original sin (which I have not). You claim I have denied the possibility of Limbo (which I have not–read carefully). You say I have denied the necessity of Baptism (again, I have never said this). You claim I view adherence to the dogmas as "optional (again, which I have not). It is very uncharitable to misrepresent what one says and then imply that due to this misrepresentation, that they are a heretic. Even if I were a heretic (which I am not, I am very orthodox, and considered to be somewhat of a Traditionalist by some of my friends) you do not have the authority to declare me one. On these forums, the charge of charge of heresy should never be leveled, which you have done on multiple occasions, because we are mostly laymen trying to learn more about the faith. There is no catechetical use in accusing another of heresy and throwing around this or that anathema. I mean really. You have failed in explaining anything. To copy and paste part of a Church document is not explanation, it is merely being an automaton. Catechesis is to pass on or hand down the faith. This entails more than simply quiting Tradition. It also involves meditating on and explaining what the Tradition actually means. Please don’t respond with another simple copy and paste of a statement from Trent. I already have those documents. Instead, explain how it is just for God to hold people to revelation which they have not received.
 
NO, I am sorry. I have this whole thread: I have explained time and again what I believe and why, that IS catechesis.

Tommy, I never said you denied original sin. I asked you what you thought of it.

I have never anathematized you, I have quoted Church documents.

'You are jumping too quickly to take everything I say like it’s directed against you.

I have asked you to confirm your position with Magisterial teaching.

Why should I believe something someone says, just because they say so?

Nope. THat is not how research and development of Personal ideas works. 🙂

I have never called you a heretic.

I have lined out the definition of one.

I have never said you are.

I POsses no ability to anathematize you or the desire.

Relax. 🙂

I have no ill-will toward you. SO, can you please provide me with the Church teaching highlighting the principle you are trying to establish?

PLease don’t be offended if somebody is zealous for the Catholic faith, it’s not personal. 🙂

And I can declare things authoritatively, not by my own authority, but I can declare things on the authority of truth.

For example, 2+2=4.

Can you deny it? Nope. Because I said it? NO, because it’s true. See the difference? I have no Authority. THe Truth does.

GOd bless you.

read posts 338 and 339.
 
Simply repeating what the Church says is NOT Catechisis. That is properly called dogmatics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, while reinforcing the necessity and importance of Baptism, also says that we can hope in the mercy of God for the salvation of unbaptized infants. In fact, this is an alternative to Limbo which does not contradict a single teaching of the Church. The simple fact is that as Catholics, we have a greater responsibility to the Truth than others. We have the Fullness of Truth, and we are accountable for that. Others do not have the Fullness of Truth, and therefore are not as accountable as you or I. God, in His mercy, has a path of salvation for those not in the institutional Church, which may or may not include hope for salvation for the unbaptized. This path has not been specifically revealed to us. I in no way intend to convey that baptism is unimportant, especially for the Catholic. But does God damn those people of goodwill who are seeking the Truth, but have not yet come to the Catholic Church in their spiritual journey? We must remember that God has not reveled to all equally, though he has revealed to all in some degree. Our response to that grace is important.
 
But how do you understand the Fact that for over 1600 years the CHurch has taught that unbaptized Children do not see the face of God: Both in her Ordinary magisterium and in the writings of the Theologians and saints?

THis is the FAR more prevalent position in the Church’s history.

DO you simply disregard that?

The CCC does say what it says, but like I have said, notice that that paragraph references no magisterial documents or teaching to lend credence to the idea. It simply looks like the THeologians on the committee composing the Catechism were simply influenced by a sentimentalist attitude toward their theology:

For the Church’s teaching on Grace is the teaching of St. Augustine, Which both Pope St. Hormisdas and Pope John II have declared.
 
Gregory_I said:
But how do you understand the Fact that for over 1600 years the CHurch has taught that unbaptized Children do not see the face of God: Both in her Ordinary magisterium and in the writings of the Theologians and saints?

THis is the FAR more prevalent position in the Church’s history.

DO you simply disregard that?

The CCC does say what it says, but like I have said, notice that that paragraph references no magisterial documents or teaching to lend credence to the idea. It simply looks like the THeologians on the committee composing the Catechism were simply influenced by a sentimentalist attitude toward their theology:

For the Church’s teaching on Grace is the teaching of St. Augustine, Which both Pope St. Hormisdas and Pope John II have declared.
Click to expand...
And the Catechism does not contradict that.
 
Then you admit that man is born justly condemned, undeserving of heaven, guilty of the sin of Adam and a slave to the devil and the wrath of God abides upon him?
 
But they will respond GOd is not bound by the Sacraments.

I agree, the sacraments do not have the power to BInd God.

BUt I believe God has bound himself to them, because GOd works in Covenant, CHrist issued in the New COvenant, and the Sacraments are signs of the Covenant.

THerefore, yes they’re binding on man, and GOd wills to save man through them alone.

Otherwise, we establish a dangerous precedent: If we believe that God has not bound himself to the sacraments in any sense (AN idea which is not found in Scripture or Tradition, if that means that God wills to work and complete mans salvation apart from the Sacraments at any point), Then we must admit that God does not take his own requirements for salvation seriously. We begin to get all these exceptions to the rule.

We begin to assert that GOd meant what he said in general. But not fully. After all, some will say, wasn’t Cornelius considered just before his conversion? Yes. Yet somehow, this was not enough: God did not leave him in his ignorance, but brought him to the truth, because of his receptivity to the truth, and in a miraculous way: He had an angel tell him to seek out those who will give him pure doctrine and confer the sacraments upon him and his household.

Now, if God was capable of filling up this man’s salvation in some mysterious way through his ignorance, then why did he not allow him to remain in his ignorance, just as he was? After all, was he not considered righteous and God-fearing? Is this not enough?

NO! It is not enough. It is not enough to content ourselves with half-truths, and this goes for what is currently passed off as common doctrine as well: THere are some who will maintain: “Well, the Church says the invincibly ignorant can be saved, so let’s entertain good hope for their salvation. After all, God is merciful, and surely he would not let all those people go to hell on a technicality would he?”

Against those who say those things, I say: You have only half the truth (and I will bring this round to infants).
  1. Invincible ignorance is not the same thing as sanctifying grace.
  2. It is impossible to be justified without sanctifying grace.
  3. Since the promulgation of the gospel, the only means of conveying sanctifying grace is Sacramental water baptism OR the avowed intention to receive it.
  4. TO have the intention to be baptized implies knowing about baptism which means not being ignorant of the means of salvation in the first place. This understanding is RIghtly called the Baptism of desire, for those who desire baptism.
  5. There is NO dogmatic teaching in the church on “implicit” baptism of desire. It is a theological opinion, and can be freely rejected as such.
Now, about invincible ignorance:
  1. Invincible ignorance is not sanctifying grace.
  2. Invincible ignorance means existing in a state of ignorance where one would not be guilty of the sin of unbelief, for those could not be accountable for the knowledge which they could have no way of knowing.
  3. There are other sins that are capble of being commited besides the sin of unbelief that can send a person to hell, indeed:
  4. Since the fall of Adam, man, in the words of St. Augustine, “cannot not sin.”
  5. Original sin alone is enough to separate a man from God.
THerefore, there are people who die in invincible ignorance. BUt it doesn’t mean they’ll be saved. The Mayans were invincibly ignorant of the GOspel, yet they worhsipped the Sun and practiced human Sacrifice CONSTANTLY. DO you think that simply GOd did not impute their unbelief as a sin that all their other actions were not sinful?

But, some may insist, How could they know they were sinning?

Conscience. GOd has put it in every man, and man can choose to abandon it, and he will be punished for it.
 
Gregory_I said:
THerefore, there are people who die in invincible ignorance. BUt it doesn’t mean they’ll be saved. The Mayans were invincibly ignorant of the GOspel, yet they worhsipped the Sun and practiced human Sacrifice CONSTANTLY. DO you think that simply GOd did not impute their unbelief as a sin that all their other actions were not sinful?

But, some may insist, How could they know they were sinning?

Conscience. GOd has put it in every man, and man can choose to abandon it, and he will be punished for it.
Click to expand...
I am learning on this thread.
How can their conscience be right if it has not yet been transformed through baptism?
 
Exactly. And St. THomas Aquinas teaches that those in invincible ignorance are punnished with ignorance for their sinfulness.

Just as God sent an angel to reveal the true faith to Cornelius, a God-fearing gentile who was ignorant of the true faith, because of th eopenness of his heart to grace; conversely, God did not send a preacher or do anything miraculous for the other gentiles for a very long time, like say the Native Americans. He did not make the faith explicit for them for 1500 years. We may assume this was a punishment for the hardness of their hearts, and their ignorance of the gospel was a punishment, as St. THomas Aquinas teaches.

But, once Again, Aquinas rues the day:

As regards Pelagius’ problem of people of good will who lived at the ends of the earth and who had never heard of Christ, St. Thomas taught that it pertained to Divine Providence to furnish all such with the means of salvation, provided there was no hindrance on their part:

“Is It Necessary to Believe Explicitly?

“Difficulties: It seems that it is not, for 1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit Faith is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion fol*lows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of Faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary…

“Answer to Difficulty No.1:

“Granted that everyone is bound to believe something expli*citly, no untenable conclusion follows if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is nec*essary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, **we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspira*tion what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the Faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius **(Acts 10:20).

If he doesn’t furnish such a preacher for the ignorant, we must simply conclude that those in question don’t want it enough, and are thus Punished with ignorance.

NOtice what Aquinas does not say? He does not say GOd will miraculouslt infuse sanctifying grace into their darkened and sinful hearts. He says he will find a way to make the Faith explicit so they can elicit at LEAST an act of Divine and Catholic Faith which is necessary for salvation.
 
Are the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas to be considered infallible?
 
THe POpes have taught that St. THomas Aquinas’ Teaching was to be considered the Teaching of the CHurch, and that he must always be viewed with Suspicion who would not accept the teachings of St. Thomas.

And yet, St. THomas subjected all his writing to the scrutiny of the Church.

But because nothing has infallibly been determined in this matter (How God excercises the extraordinary means of grace) I will stick with THomas and the Doctors of the Church, seeing as how the past 8 centuries have been essentially Thomistic.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory I
Then you admit that man is born justly condemned, undeserving of heaven, guilty of the sin of Adam and a slave to the devil and the wrath of God abides upon him?
StTommyMore said:
I have never denied this
Click to expand...
But do you affirm it with all your heart and without any doubt? Do you give the assent of faith to this article of faith: Namely the effects of original sin, as expounded by St. Augustine, Adopted by the CHurch and promulgated by the Ecumenical COuncils in its particular wording?
 
Gregory_I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory I
Then you admit that man is born justly condemned, undeserving of heaven, guilty of the sin of Adam and a slave to the devil and the wrath of God abides upon him?

But do you affirm it with all your heart and without any doubt? Do you give the assent of faith to this article of faith: Namely the effects of original sin, as expounded by St. Augustine, Adopted by the CHurch and promulgated by the Ecumenical COuncils in its particular wording?
Click to expand...
Of course I do. Who nominated you to be Inquisitor?
 
wow, 27 pages. Ok, I don’t have enough time to read through them all to find my answer to I’m just gonna throw out this question and hope that someone answers:

Is Limbo temporary or Permanent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top