T
Tom317
Guest
The logical conclusion to your statements is no-one needs to follow Christ, because will understand and save us anyway.
- Status
T
Tom317
Guest
That is your view, whcih respectfully I find absurd.
Nope, baptism of desire takes place when a person gives his life for Christ, not at the point odf death, rather at the point od giving while still alive.
No, it gives a possible explanation, but is never proclaimed something God will do. You know that.
Nope, wrong again. The Church never declares definitively that Limbo exists, it uses Limbo to explain what might happen in light of the fact that God has made baptism an absolute requirement for salvation. Limbo in actual impact is theory used to say “The Church knows one cannot be saved without baptism, so God MUST do something else that He has not revealed to us.”
C
corvidae
Guest
Tom we could go about this all day, and in fact pretty much have.
I will leave with three points, one
At the point of death, I was talking of baptism of blood, not baptism of desire
two
you have declared that the babies are in limbo, and now you say that you and the Church simply do not know. This is changing your premise Tom and not good for any type of discussion.
Three
You claim the logical conclusion of Jim’s argument is that no one needs to follow Christ. This is not the logical conclusion and you know it. It is Church teaching and is known as invincible ignorance. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Him. The Patriarchs of old came to the Father through Christ, though they did not know Him. So someone who has not heard of Christ may still go to the Father through Christ.
With this, I gratefully bow out. To quote Chesterton- I am afraid an argument is getting in the way of our discussion.
A lone Raven
I will leave with three points, one
At the point of death, I was talking of baptism of blood, not baptism of desire
two
you have declared that the babies are in limbo, and now you say that you and the Church simply do not know. This is changing your premise Tom and not good for any type of discussion.
Three
You claim the logical conclusion of Jim’s argument is that no one needs to follow Christ. This is not the logical conclusion and you know it. It is Church teaching and is known as invincible ignorance. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Him. The Patriarchs of old came to the Father through Christ, though they did not know Him. So someone who has not heard of Christ may still go to the Father through Christ.
With this, I gratefully bow out. To quote Chesterton- I am afraid an argument is getting in the way of our discussion.
A lone Raven
J
JimO
Guest
Tom, first, be reasonable because you know that your statement was a complete misrepresentation of everything I said. There is no logic at all in that conclusion. Second, this debate seems to me to be a complete waste of time because all I see is a group of committed Catholics arguing over “specks in the eye” while there are plenty of planks to be addressed. Third, I see in your previous posts that you have accused others of ducking a question or a point that was made and here you have done the same with a dismissive comment. So, let me concisely restate my points:
- You claimed first that there is no provision made by the Church for attaining heaven except by water baptism and yet you offerred a quote that discussed baptism by blood and desire (which I had earlier discussed).
- As Catholics, we are bound by the dogma of the Church, to which I hold on all matters - I consider my beliefs very orthodox. However, on matters that are not dogmatic, such as limbo, we are free to discuss, speculate, wonder, etc., etc. with the intellect that God gave us. We are even free to disagree on certain matters, such as Church-approved private revelation, like whether Mary truly appeared at Fatima. Therefore, I am not bound to believe the “theological speculation” of limbo and given that the Church leaves the unbaptised to the mercy of God, I am free to speculate as to how God might apply such mercy for the unborn. I was doing so in my first post, while making it very clear that I am no theologian and only offering speculation.
- You completely ignored my question regarding invinscible ignorance. The basis of it is “ignorance” of Christ. And the result is the “possibility of heaven”, not the guarantee. Therefore, you and I would not qualify, for we are not ignorant of Christ and not to follow Christ would mean hell. My point about God’s mercy had nothing to do with not following Christ. One of the beauties of the Catholic faith is that the Church has made provision for all those millions of people who are born and die in complete ignorance of Christ. Most Protestant faiths contend that all such people are in hell, which is neither merciful nor just. In my opinion (and this is only an opinion) to believe that I, who was taught the faith, was chosen over millions of others, who were not, have the opportunity to choose heaven, while they do not, is a bit arrogant.
T
Tom317
Guest
Okay, I am sorry to have contributed to wasting your time. Thank you for the chat.
J
JimO
Guest
Nice duckOkay, I am sorry to have contributed to wasting your time. Thank you for the chat.
.
T
Tom317
Guest
Not ducking, just respecting your view that this is a waste of time. I would be happy to answer your questions, yet I fear you would consider it a waste of time.Nice duck
J
JimO
Guest
The point of that comment, Tom, was to suggest that the matter of limbo is trivial compared to the larger issues that keep others from God. I’m sorry for sounding harsh, truly. We all have limited time to spend here. People’s lives are truly being changed by our participation in this ministry. The devil loves to get the faithful to argue over the minutiae and to have us get frustrated and terse with one another. I bet you and I and Cordivae would agree on far more things than most three random individuals would and, in our faith we have far more in common than most.
Anyway, sorry for being snotty. Sometimes I get caught up in trying to prove that I’m right and forget what my obligations to the Lord are when participating in this ministry.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
What is definitely a Catholic dogma is the teaching that those dying in original sin only are punished in the next world. This dogma was taught by two ecumenical councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439 (DS 858 and 1306). Here are the words of Lyons II:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only descend without delay into hell (infernum), to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments."
This is the dogma that makes limbo a necessary concept–unless you wish to say that unbaptized infants suffer the “pain of sense” in hell. I don’t wish to say that, believing, along with St. Thomas Aquinas, that the only punishment for unbaptized infants is deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. This penalty coexists with the natural happiness of limbo.
To say that all aborted children are martyrs does not correspond to the Church’s concept of martyrdom, which requires explicit hatred of the Faith or of a Christian virtue.
As for baptism of desire for unbaptized infants, Pope Pius XII, in his Allocution to Midwives on October 29, 1951, taught that this is impossible:
"Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death; without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open."
The bottom line is that the deduction of limbo is necessary for the defense of the Catholic dogmas of original sin and the Church’s infallibility.
Keep and spread the Faith.
T
Tom317
Guest
I would argue strongly that the discussion and importance of Limbo is far, far, far more important than you likely realize and it so far from being trivial as to seem ridiculous.The point of that comment, Tom, was to suggest that the matter of limbo is trivial compared to the larger issues that keep others from God. I’m sorry for sounding harsh, truly. We all have limited time to spend here. People’s lives are truly being changed by our participation in this ministry. The devil loves to get the faithful to argue over the minutiae and to have us get frustrated and terse with one another. I bet you and I and Cordivae would agree on far more things than most three random individuals would and, in our faith we have far more in common than most.
Anyway, sorry for being snotty. Sometimes I get caught up in trying to prove that I’m right and forget what my obligations to the Lord are when participating in this ministry.
IMO, if the Church gets rid of Limbo and does not replace it with a similar theor, then abortion will be justifiable, original sin will fall away in importance and there will be no reason for parents to baptize their children before they reach the age of reason.
This is a very critical topic/discussion.
C
Corki
Guest
Unfortunately, there is no way to screen the non-Catholics from voting on a poll like this. In spite of the instructions and the beginning statement of “I am a Catholic…” some of the people who voted are those who identify themselves in thier profiles as members of various non-Catholic churches.
It doesn’t make it any less disturbing, just a little less disheatening.
M
mchale
Guest
Just remember Tom, it is your opinion, and not a fact. The argument you link between limbo and abortion are frankly, spurious. By this line of reasoning, even if the church does not change its position on Limbo, infanticide would be justified as long as it occurs immediately after baptisim! I don’t think you have ever answered that criticism? Further, I don’t think the argument about deferring baptisim is relevant either for the basic reason that communion is usually administered before the reason for most children and yet I see parents holding back on that, even though the same pressing need for early reception is not present! Even if they don’t understand, even most casual Catholics will continue to baptise in infancy simply because its what has always been done.
Ultimately, I think the current direction the Church is leaning right now is the correct one. It eliminates unproven, and unprovable hypothesis, but it does not eliminate the possibility that a child who does not receive a water baptisim will not attain heaven. It does however, leave open the possibility that the child will attain a baptism of desire in some fashion and thus be saved.
–
Bill
T
Tom317
Guest
Yes, and I have heard people use that argument before and that is before the Church brought-up the notion of unpbaptized babies going to Heaven. If the Church gets rid of Limbo, it will make this argument become even more acceptable. I have plenty of people across various sites say exactly that.
Some Catholics will know their fiath and will continue as they should. The majority will simply take the opportunity to become even more lazy about getting their kids baptized. They might also start complaing that baptism should not be required for first communion and they most definitely would extend the argument (among many lay Catholics) that sacramental confession is not at all required and that Catholics need only to confess privately to God. Original sin becomes meaningless in this environment.
If we are going to speak about only things that the Church can prove, then the Church has no business making these statements at all, nor should it be saying non-Catholics might be saved, because Jesus tied baptism to salvation and that IS the only thing the Church can prove. By saying anything else the Church is already saying something beyond revelation. So, using your words, the Church could get rid of Limbo if it truly concludes it does not exist, yet it must then make the statement that no-one but Catholics are saved as far as it knows.
J
JimO
Guest
Yes, it is your opinion and you have a right to it. And, since it is an opinion, I can’t tell you that it is wrong, precisely because it’s an opinion. However, I can disagree, and I do.
T
Tom317
Guest
Yes, of course is only my opinion. Yet, I firmly believe the Church will not get rid of Limbo for the reasons (and many more) that I and Steve have posted here and in other threads.
M
mimontice
Guest
None of the above (I wish that would have been one of the choices).
I have had “issue” at one time or another with most of the items listed in the poll however, with careful study of why these “rules” remain, I was able to come to terms with them. Now I find myself defending them.
God Bless!
I have had “issue” at one time or another with most of the items listed in the poll however, with careful study of why these “rules” remain, I was able to come to terms with them. Now I find myself defending them.
God Bless!
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
Bill, on the contrary, no one on these forums has ever answered this argument: if all unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven, then it is better to be aborted than to be born.
The link between “dropping” limbo and encouraging abortion is hardly spurious. If all aborted infants are guaranteed heaven, whereas those who are born risk dying in unrepented mortal sin and going to hell for all eternity, then, logically, it is preferable, from a Catholic perspective, to be aborted than to be born.
In this scenario, abortionists, altough they themselves are committing the mortal sin of murder and thus imperiling their own salvation, are nonetheless indirectly securing the beatific vision for their victims. Consequently, abortion, though not better for the abortionist, is certainly better for the unborn child, and abortionists are doing them a favor by killing them.
The point is not to absolve those perpetrating the abortion of the sin of murder, or to justify post-Baptism infanticide, but rather to point out, through an argumentum ad absurdum based on Catholic premises, that it is absurd to say that all unbaptized infants attain the beatific vision. In view of this absurdity, it follows that the Catholic Church cannot eliminate the theological deduction known as limbo.
This is an airtight argument. It has only two escape hatches: you can either (1) deny the dogma of hell by saying that *everyone *goes to heaven, or (2) abandon the Faith altogether.
Bill, respectfully and fraternally, I challenge you and those who agree with you on limbo to disprove this common-sense conclusion: if all unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven, then it is better to be aborted than to be born.
Keep and spread the Faith.
W
Woodstock
Guest
If the church would adjust the understanding of original sin to be in alignment with the eastern understanding (which is also valid), then the problems created with limbo and the Imacculate Conception would be alleviated.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
However the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of original sin is to be understood, the Catholic Church, being the one true Church and infallible, cannot, and will not, abandon the dogmas of original sin and the Immaculate Conception.
For the Catholic Church, original sin is “an essential truth of the faith” (CCC 388).
Keep and spread the Faith.
W
Woodstock
Guest
The catechism is only binding on the Latin church. The eastern CATHOLIC churches have their own catechisms, as well as their own canon laws. They also believe in original sin, but understand it differently. The Vatican, I believe, has modified the entry of original sin in their new catechism to be promulgated to be more in line with this fact.
- Status