FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Hope or Presumption?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
BTW, here's something that might happen. Normally I hate TIA, but amoungst thier trash there are a few rough gems.

24 Reasons Why Not To Reject Limbo

John Vennari

Limbo is in the news. A new document from Rome's International Theological Commission [ITC], released on April 20, states that Catholics may virtually ignore the teaching on limbo and may have "many reasons for hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

Practically every major newspaper carried the story. Headlines such as "Vatican Abolishes Limbo;" "Vatican Report Rejects Limbo;" and "Concept of Limbo Now Assigned to Oblivion" appeared throughout the world.

[Image: E012_LimboAngelico.jpg]

Our Lord opening Limbo by Fra Angelico
Yet despite this latest study, many intend to hold to the conventional teaching that the souls of infants who die before Baptism do not attain Heaven, because they have not obtained the remission of Original Sin that only Baptism provides. They go to Limbo, a place of natural happiness wherein they suffer no pain of punishment since they are guilty of no personal sin.

Listed below are 24 of the chief reasons why I, and thousands of Catholics the world over, will not reject the Catholic doctrine of Limbo:

1. Because Pope Pius VI, in a formal magisterial decree, denounced the rejection of Limbo as "false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools";

2. Because the ITC's study on Limbo is neither a papal document, nor a magisterial document, but a modern theological exercise that does not bind the conscience of Catholics in any way;

3. Because not even the highest Church authority has the power to change, discard or weaken objective Catholic truth;

4. Because it is an unchangeable article of Faith, taught infallibly by the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence that the souls of those who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision;

5. Because Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are "excluded from Beatific Vision," which is one of the reasons Sixtus V denounced abortion as a heinous crime;

6. Because the teaching of Limbo has been handed down to us by the Church Fathers, the denial of its existence has been censured, and its existence is held as theologically certain;

7. Because to reject Limbo strengthens the implicit denial of Original Sin, a chief error of our age;

8. Because all conventional textbooks on Catholic Moral Theology, basing themselves on the Council of Florence, teach that parents sin grievously by needlessly delaying Baptism of their newborns, as it endangers the infant's salvation. Father Prummer's Handbook of Moral Theology teaches, "Children of Catholic parents should be baptized at the earliest possible moment. Leo XIII fiercely condemned the postponing of Baptism of children";

9. Because the theory that babies who die before Baptism attain Heaven was never taken seriously by the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes of the Church throughout History. As theologian Fr. Brian Harrison recently noted, the controversy regarding Limbo has never been whether unbaptized babies go to either Limbo or Heaven, but whether or not they suffer any pain of sense in Limbo;

10. Because one of the theologians cited in the ITC text is the late Fr. Karl Rahner, a modern theologian known for his dubious teaching on Original Sin;

11. Because another theologian cited in the ITC document was Fr. Jacques Dupuis, a man whom I heard at a 2003 conference denounce the Council of Florence as a "horrible text," which displays contempt for sacred, infallible doctrine;

[Image: E012_LimboBonisegna.jpg]

Above, Our Lord in Limbo by Ducci di Bonisegna. Below, by Giotto

[Image: E012_LimboGiotto.jpg]
12. Because St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of theologians, taught that the unbaptized "cannot be saved, for there is only one means of being incorporated with Jesus Christ and of receiving his grace [Baptism], without which there is no salvation among men."

13. Because Limbo cannot be dismissed without doing violence to Catholic doctrine defined at the Council of Trent: That all human beings, with the exception of Christ and the Blessed Mother, are born with Original Sin; and that Baptism is necessary to remit Original Sin, obtain sanctifying grace and thus attain eternal life;

14. Because churchmen can not reform Catholic doctrine for the sake of alleged "new pastoral needs," since human considerations and "signs of the times" have no bearing on whether or not a Catholic doctrine is true;

15. Because nothing can be more unpastoral than to insinuate the consistent teaching of Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church throughout the centuries may now be discarded. This causes great confusion and bewilderment among the faithful;

16. Because the novelties and ambiguities in the ITC document on Limbo can never supersede the clear, forthright teaching of the perennial Catholic Magisterium;

17. Because the ITC document neither affirms nor outright denies the existence of Limbo, but bleeds it to death with sentimental and modernist statements unworthy of a sound Catholic text;

18. Because the Second Council of Nicea formally anathematizes any Catholic who rejects written or unwritten Tradition;

19. Because the First Vatican Council, employing the full weight of infallible authority, commands Catholics to believe the Catholic Faith "in the same sense and in the same meaning," as the Church has held throughout the centuries;

20. Because Pope St. Pius X condemned the "evolution of dogma" as a principle error of the Modernist heresy;

21. Because the First Vatican Council teaches dogmatically that even a Pope has no authority to proclaim a new doctrine, or to change doctrine, but is bound to faithfully transmit what the Church always taught throughout the ages;

22. Because the revered Carmelite theologian Fr. Joseph de Sainte Marie observed that the Church is now going through "an extraordinarily abnormal period," in which it is "very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment;"

23. Because I cannot accept any teaching that would have been denounced by Pope Pius XII, Pope Pius XI, Pope Benedict XV, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius IX, and all previous Popes;

24. Because there are countless Catholic parents throughout the ages who have suffered the misfortune of miscarriages, but were not the least bit tempted to discard the teaching of Limbo, since they knew the souls of these unbaptized babies enjoy a state of natural happiness for eternity.
Quote: The Church has not been clear on this matter at all.
And what? Those pronouncements from the Magisterium were for what? Shits and giggles?
didishroom Wrote:The Church has been very clear on this matter. Why would you disregard it because you can't fathom it?

Many saints supported this. The Pope condemned those who denied it. Why will you not accept?

The Church has been very clear on Feeneyism and condemned it and those who supported it. Why won't you accept this?
didishroom Wrote:
Quote: The Church has not been clear on this matter at all.
And what? Those pronouncements from the Magisterium were for what? Shits and giggles?

Read: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=27249749&CFTOKEN=19661850

It was found free of error by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...702216.htm
Quote:
The Church has been very clear on Feeneyism and condemned it and those who supported it. Why won't you accept this?


1.) This has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

2.) You accuse me of thread hijacking before. How is this different? Why not answer my points? I answered yours. Common courtesy says you should return that.

3.) The Church has been clear on the position of Fr. Feeney and his Order. You however refuse to accept this and just keep repeating that Feeneyism was condemned as heresy by the Church like a broken record, thinking repitition will make it true.

4.) On previous discussions I have pointed out that the 'excommunication' of the priest(which had nothing to do with supposed heresy) was lifted by Paul VI. Bl. John XXIII had Monsignor Cassano review Fr.'s theology and reported it was free from error. A book entitled They Fought the Good Fight defending Fr. Feeney's theology was given an Nihil Obstat from the Bishop of Worster, stating that the book was free from all doctrinal and moral error. His Order is recognized by the local Ordinaries. The one hosue of sisters used to host of the 19 official Indult Masses recognized by the Vatican. The Ecclesia Dei Pontifical Commission has said Fr. Feeney died within the Church and that his followers are fully within the Church. As Cardinal Ratzing, Pope Benedict met with the superior of one of the branches of Fr.'s Order and even said they cannot be considered heretics.

5.) So again, how can you say that the Church has condemned Feeneyism when she has delcared those people to be in the Church and are not to be considered heretics?


Quote:1. Because Pope Pius VI, in a formal magisterial decree, denounced the rejection of Limbo as "false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools";

 
Context?

Quote:2. Because the ITC's study on Limbo is neither a papal document, nor a magisterial document, but a modern theological exercise that does not bind the conscience of Catholics in any way;

I thought in the other thread we established that the consensus of theologians binds the conscience?
Quote:3. Because not even the highest Church authority has the power to change, discard or weaken objective Catholic truth;
This begs the question and assumes limbo is objective Catholic Truth.

Quote:4. Because it is an unchangeable article of Faith, taught infallibly by the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence that the souls of those who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision;
But we don't know if unbaptized infants depart this life in the state of original sin because water Baptism is only the normative means to remit it.

Quote:5. Because Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are "excluded from Beatific Vision," which is one of the reasons Sixtus V denounced abortion as a heinous crime;
context?
Quote:6. Because the teaching of Limbo has been handed down to us by the Church Fathers,

The Church Fathers said a lot of things. Some speculative, some doctrinal.

 
Quote:the denial of its existence has been censured,

When and for what reason?

 
Quote:and its existence is held as theologically certain;

By whom? Not the Pope.

Quote:7. Because to reject Limbo strengthens the implicit denial of Original Sin, a chief error of our age;
No it does not.
Quote:8. Because all conventional textbooks on Catholic Moral Theology, basing themselves on the Council of Florence, teach that parents sin grievously by needlessly delaying Baptism of their newborns, as it endangers the infant's salvation. Father Prummer's Handbook of Moral Theology teaches, "Children of Catholic parents should be baptized at the earliest possible moment. Leo XIII fiercely condemned the postponing of Baptism of children";
Of course they should be baptized as soon as possible because this is the known normative means for salvation, not because it is the absolute means.

Quote:9. Because the theory that babies who die before Baptism attain Heaven was never taken seriously by the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes of the Church throughout History.

Says who? And even so it is a matter of speculation anyway since the matter is not part of the Deposit of Faith.

Quote:As theologian Fr. Brian Harrison recently noted, the controversy regarding Limbo has never been whether unbaptized babies go to either Limbo or Heaven, but whether or not they suffer any pain of sense in Limbo;

That's because those of his stripe accepted spculative opinion as fact and chose to work within those restrictions.


Quote:10. Because one of the theologians cited in the ITC text is the late Fr. Karl Rahner, a modern theologian known for his dubious teaching on Original Sin;
Who cares? Judge the statement on its own merits. Rahner also believes Christ was God, does this mean that teaching is also suspect?
Quote:11. Because another theologian cited in the ITC document was Fr. Jacques Dupuis, a man whom I heard at a 2003 conference denounce the Council of Florence as a "horrible text," which displays contempt for sacred, infallible doctrine;
You say the same about VCII, John.

 



 
Quote:12. Because St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of theologians, taught that the unbaptized "cannot be saved, for there is only one means of being incorporated with Jesus Christ and of receiving his grace [Baptism], without which there is no salvation among men."
 
Aquinas has been wrong before and submitted his opinions to the judgment of the Church.

Quote:13. Because Limbo cannot be dismissed without doing violence to Catholic doctrine defined at the Council of Trent: That all human beings, with the exception of Christ and the Blessed Mother, are born with Original Sin; and that Baptism is necessary to remit Original Sin, obtain sanctifying grace and thus attain eternal life;
Again a Feeneyite understanding of absolute necessity of water baptism.

Quote:14. Because churchmen can not reform Catholic doctrine for the sake of alleged "new pastoral needs," since human considerations and "signs of the times" have no bearing on whether or not a Catholic doctrine is true;

Irrelevant.

Quote:15. Because nothing can be more unpastoral than to insinuate the consistent teaching of Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church throughout the centuries may now be discarded. This causes great confusion and bewilderment among the faithful;
They are not being discarded. Your erroneous interpretation is.
Quote:16. Because the novelties and ambiguities in the ITC document on Limbo can never supersede the clear, forthright teaching of the perennial Catholic Magisterium;
They do not.

Quote:17. Because the ITC document neither affirms nor outright denies the existence of Limbo, but bleeds it to death with sentimental and modernist statements unworthy of a sound Catholic text;

Because they can't confirm or deny it because it is and always has been a theory, not a dogma.

Quote:18. Because the Second Council of Nicea formally anathematizes any Catholic who rejects written or unwritten Tradition;
His flawed interpretation is not "Tradition".
Quote:19. Because the First Vatican Council, employing the full weight of infallible authority, commands Catholics to believe the Catholic Faith "in the same sense and in the same meaning," as the Church has held throughout the centuries;
Right, the faith. Not speculative theories.
Quote:20. Because Pope St. Pius X condemned the "evolution of dogma" as a principle error of the Modernist heresy;
Limbo is not a dogma.
Quote:21. Because the First Vatican Council teaches dogmatically that even a Pope has no authority to proclaim a new doctrine, or to change doctrine, but is bound to faithfully transmit what the Church always taught throughout the ages;
Did the Pope even make a statement on the issue as Pope? If not who cares.

Quote:22. Because the revered Carmelite theologian Fr. Joseph de Sainte Marie observed that the Church is now going through "an extraordinarily abnormal period," in which it is "very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment;"
Vague, general, statement that has little relevance to the issue.
Quote:23. Because I cannot accept any teaching that would have been denounced by Pope Pius XII, Pope Pius XI, Pope Benedict XV, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius IX, and all previous Popes;
Speculation.

Quote:24. Because there are countless Catholic parents throughout the ages who have suffered the misfortune of miscarriages, but were not the least bit tempted to discard the teaching of Limbo, since they knew the souls of these unbaptized babies enjoy a state of natural happiness for eternity.
Mind reading plus a silly argument.


 
 
Quote:Context?

Why would context be necessary? Look it up yourself and see if we're presenting it wrong.

Quote:I thought in the other thread we established that the consensus of theologians binds the conscience?
If I get, let's say, four theologians together and they all agree on something, can we truthfully say, 'there's a consensus of theologians, it must be true!'?
There was only a consensus of those who signed the document, one of whom I believe was a woman.
 
Quote:This begs the question and assumes limbo is objective Catholic Truth.
Even you must be aware that the Vatican has allowed many things to be published there are questionable.


 

Quote:But we don't know if unbaptized infants depart this life in the state of original sin because water Baptism is only the normative means to remit it.
This is another problem. People keep inserting little magic words like "normative" to insuate that's all we 'know' that can save someone, without excluding other possibilities. The Church has said that baptism is the only way, not the only way that we know of.


 
Quote:The Church Fathers said a lot of things. Some speculative, some doctrinal.
As with the case of BOD, but people won't let that one die.
 
 

Quote:By whom? Not the Pope.
Maybe not this pope.


 

Quote:No it does not.
The day after this was anounced to the press, my newspaper wuoted a priest who greeted this with joy, as it signified a step away from the doctrine of Original Sin.


Quote:Of course they should be baptized as soon as possible because this is the known normative means for salvation, not because it is the absolute means.
There you go again: adding your own qualifiers. "If anyone shall say that Baptism is optional, that is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." Trent.


 
Quote:Says who? And even so it is a matter of speculation anyway since the matter is not part of the Deposit of Faith.
Can you provide proof that any Doctors or Pope througout the history of the Church held that unbaptized babies could go to heaven.


Quote:You say the same about VCII, John.
Vatican II wasn't infallible. There's a difference.

Quote:Aquinas has been wrong before and submitted his opinions to the judgment of the Church.
Funny, no one would take that as a reason for denying BOD when I pointed out the same thing.


 

Quote:Again a Feeneyite understanding of absolute necessity of water baptism.
Stop with "Feeneyite"


 
Quote:They are not being discarded. Your erroneous interpretation is.
Hmmm..Church says everyone including infants must be baptized to get to heaven. Church condemns those who reject Limbo. Doctors and saints profess it. Accepted by almost every traditional priest I know. I think it's safe bet that Limbo is not the result of reading Church documents wrong.
  
Quote:Because they can't confirm or deny it because it is and always has been a theory, not a dogma.
....against all evidence to the contrary...


 

 


  

 
"Lake of fire," which is said to refer to the terminus of the fate of hell at the end of the world.  But hell is in the condition of being already a fiery place, so isn't "lake of fire" redundant?   The vision given by our Lady to the children of Fatima showed hell as a lake of fire and showed human and demonic figures immersed in fire.    I searched the phrase in the Scriptures and it's not there.  What is it's origin?
Vincentius Wrote:"Lake of fire," which is said to refer to the terminus of the fate of hell at the end of the world.  But hell is in the condition of being already a fiery place, so isn't "lake of fire" redundant?   The vision given by our Lady to the children of Fatima showed hell as a lake of fire and showed human and demonic figures immersed in fire.    I searched the phrase in the Scriptures and it's not there.  What is it's origin?

The fires of Hell are not literal usually.

The phrase used by Jesus refers mostly to Gehenna, a place near Jerusalem used for burning garbage and figuratively a gateway to the underworld. The fires are also paired with burning weeds and such.

Historically, hell has been portrayed as extremely hot or extremely cold. It really doesn't matter as long as the allusions are understood. The lack of physical bodies would make "hot" and "cold" meaningless and in effect, they are the same thing. The fact that hell's fires are unquenchable and eternal speaks more of cold from a physics standpoint. Also consider the areas were this is, the missionaries to the Inuit had trouble with hell because when they were told about it, the Inuit found hell to be an attractive place because they really didn't have experience with extreme heat.
ONeill Wrote:The lack of physical bodies would make "hot" and "cold" meaningless and in effect, they are the same thing.
Except for the resurrection of the dead when souls are reuinited to bodies.

Quote:The fact that hell's fires are unquenchable and eternal speaks more of cold from a physics standpoint. Also consider the areas were this is, the missionaries to the Inuit had trouble with hell because when they were told about it, the Inuit found hell to be an attractive place because they really didn't have experience with extreme heat.


This seems absurd as even Eskimos realize fire burns. The missionaries were apparently not good communicators.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13