Hope or Presumption?
#41
Quote:The latter idea is not logically developed from Revelation.

Limbo is most definitely logically developed from Revelation.  St. Thomas Aquinas was not just making up a theory, and the Pope condemned the notion of disregarding Limbo as a fable.  It has basis in tradition, reached the level of a theological certainty, and was held by the ordinary magisterium.  This is even admitted by the modern International Theological Commission:

Quote:This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis

And there you have it.  The Church was teaching us one thing in our catechisms for hundreds of years (they did not say Limbo was merely a theory) when all of a sudden it was replaced by Vatican II Super-Dogma.   How gracious the modernists are in allowing us to consider Limbo as a possible theological hypothesis.  [Image: eyes.gif]
Reply
#42
No, no, no.

In itself Limbo is a dogma. More than just a "development" from Revelation, it is a specifically de fide dogma promulgated at Florence and elsewhere.

In terms of the general Revealed rule, a state of perfect natural happiness without the beatific vision is the natural ordinary default for a hypothetical human who dies without grace.

However, that is different issue than the question of whether we may have hope that, at least since the time of Christ, in actual practice God doesnt actually let anyone die in original sin, rather giving grace (extraordinarily in the internal forum) to any innocent in the moment before death.

We must affirm the former hypothetically, it is very important. Even if we hope no one goes there in actual practice, even the mere hypothetical ordinary rule is necessary to emphasize that heaven is not the default, that no one has a right to it, that naturally, without grace, man does not attain God.

But may also definitely have good hope for the latter. Certainly, nothing in Revelation denies it, and the mercy of God and His salvific will even suggest it.

They're two separate questions and may be held simultaneously without contradiction.
Reply
#43
Quote:But may also definitely have good hope for the latter. Certainly, nothing in Revelation denies it, and the mercy of God and His salvific will even suggest it.

The Council of Florence denies it:  "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God."
Reply
#44
I'm back with one more question. But first, this bit from Wikipedia: 
Quote: In 1984, when Joseph Ratzinger, then Cardinal Prefect of that Congregation, stated that, as a private theologian, he rejected the claim that children who die unbaptised cannot attain salvation, he was speaking for many academic theologians of his background and training.
 My question: If Cardinal Ratzinger, as a private theologian, can reject the claim that unbaptized babies go to hell, can I, as a private layman, do the same?

- Lisa
Reply
#45
The problem here, is you're assuming that a private theologian can actually hold that particular view.

A private theologian has no more right to hold an erronious opinion than any other Catholic.
Reply
#46
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:My question: If Cardinal Ratzinger, as a private theologian, can reject the claim that unbaptized babies go to hell, can I, as a private layman, do the same?

Given the circumstances, I understand your qualms about this issue. However, Limbo is a defined dogma of the Church and people who die with the stain of original sin but without any personal sin of their own, like infants, end up there.

I believe the Council of Florence has already defined this issue dogmatically. You shouldn't follow the opinions of a said Cardinal but the teachings of the Church. Cardinals can be wrong, even to the point of heresy or apostasy, but the Church cannot.
Reply
#47
didishroom Wrote:The problem here, is you're assuming that a private theologian can actually hold that particular view.

No, I'm not assuming. I am understanding the article to be quoting Cardinal Ratzinger. If that's true, he's the one assuming, and rejecting. I am asking can we also believe that "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He himself is not bound by His sacraments" - to quote the CCC. ?

- Lisa

Reply
#48
Bonifacio Wrote:Given the circumstances, I understand your qualms about this issue. However, Limbo is a defined dogma of the Church and people who die with the stain of original sin but without any personal sin of their own, like infants, end up there.

I believe the Council of Florence has already defined this issue dogmatically. You shouldn't follow the opinions of a said Cardinal but the teachings of the Church. Cardinals can be wrong, even to the point of heresy or apostasy, but the Church cannot.

Where is it defined?

The Council of Florence defined the necessity of Baptism and that infants should be baptised, but it did not say what happened to those who aren't.

Most recently, this was published: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=27201794&CFTOKEN=53770986

The pope accepted it in that it did not go against dogma: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...702216.htm
Reply
#49
Quote:
I am asking can we also believe that "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He himself is not bound by His sacraments" - to quote the CCC. ?
Of course God is not bound by His sacraments. He is however bound by His word. If He has stated a fact which the Church has defenedy by the power of His Spirit than it is wrong to assume there are exceptions.
Reply
#50
Quote:He is however bound by His word.

But He never said anything like, "I dont do this". Now that IS the Feeneyite error. The statements bind us. Not Him. He said baptism was the only means we were given, not that it was the only means He was ever going to use.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)