Prayer for the baptism of aborted babies
#41
(04-25-2010, 06:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: The conclusions of the ITC document (which is not magisterial) are ridiculous since it itself admits that Limbo was common teaching until the mid 20th century.  If these new contradictory hopes are not modernism, then what is?

Modernism denies dogma and doctrine.  Since limbo was never dogmatic or doctrinal, it's not modernism.

St. Thomas didn't think the rational soul was infused until later, and that was common teaching; the Church now believes otherwise (though it is still not dogmatic AFAIK).  By your application of the term, the infusion of the soul at the moment of conception would be Modernism.
Reply
#42
(04-24-2010, 04:13 PM)Clare Wrote: People who point out that Limbo has never been defined, ignore the fact that it is de fide that infants who die unbaptised are deprived of the Beatific Vision.

Citation?

Certainly, dying without the grace of baptism one cannot get into heaven, and that is de fide, but I know of no de fide teaching that infants who die without Sacramental baptism are necessarily denied the beatific vision if they somehow receive the grace of baptism.
Reply
#43
Here is an article about Limbo that's worth perusing:

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/04...limbo.html
Reply
#44
(04-25-2010, 09:48 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-25-2010, 06:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: The conclusions of the ITC document (which is not magisterial) are ridiculous since it itself admits that Limbo was common teaching until the mid 20th century.  If these new contradictory hopes are not modernism, then what is?

Modernism denies dogma and doctrine.  Since limbo was never dogmatic or doctrinal, it's not modernism.

St. Thomas didn't think the rational soul was infused until later, and that was common teaching; the Church now believes otherwise (though it is still not dogmatic AFAIK).  By your application of the term, the infusion of the soul at the moment of conception would be Modernism.

How can a common teaching not be doctrinal?

There is no Church teaching on when the soul is infused into the body, it is an open question, so I don't know what you're talking about.  
 
Reply
#45
(04-25-2010, 09:50 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 04:13 PM)Clare Wrote: People who point out that Limbo has never been defined, ignore the fact that it is de fide that infants who die unbaptised are deprived of the Beatific Vision.

Citation?

Certainly, dying without the grace of baptism one cannot get into heaven, and that is de fide, but I know of no de fide teaching that infants who die without Sacramental baptism are necessarily denied the beatific vision if they somehow receive the grace of baptism.

Hoping that unbaptized infants will receive the grace of baptism without martyrdom or the sacrament itself is most definitely a modern innovation based on sentimentality, flatly contradicting the common teaching of the absolute necessity of infant baptism and Baptism as a necessity of means.  Try to demonstrate otherwise, or do you simply deny that Baptism is a necessity of means?
Reply
#46
The souls of those who die in Original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is much different.
-2nd Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1445) (de fide definita).

The difference in punishment mention is obviously a reference to limbo as there only the punishment of the absence of God for the eternal life of that soul.  This is a de fide definition of limbo.

The only way an unborn child can get to heaven is to receive Baptism (be it of blood, water, etc.)  To presume that every unborn child is somehow given this baptism by miraculous means renders God's justice worthless and over-exagerates His mercy.

Now it certainly IS modernism to take a doctrine and to not deny it outright, but to find a way to defy it.  For example - we often see modernists saying such things as "yes - there is no salvation outside the Church - BUT, what is the Church?" and they ultimately find a way to incorporate all manner of people into it - even heretics and infidels.  Sometimes it is obviously heresy but most of the time it is not. 

Reply
#47
(04-25-2010, 11:14 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(04-25-2010, 09:48 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-25-2010, 06:59 PM)PeterII Wrote: The conclusions of the ITC document (which is not magisterial) are ridiculous since it itself admits that Limbo was common teaching until the mid 20th century.  If these new contradictory hopes are not modernism, then what is?

Modernism denies dogma and doctrine.  Since limbo was never dogmatic or doctrinal, it's not modernism.

St. Thomas didn't think the rational soul was infused until later, and that was common teaching; the Church now believes otherwise (though it is still not dogmatic AFAIK).  By your application of the term, the infusion of the soul at the moment of conception would be Modernism.

How can a common teaching not be doctrinal?

Let's look

Quote:There is no Church teaching on when the soul is infused into the body, it is an open question, so I don't know what you're talking about.  

There is teaching that is not de fide, just like limbo.

From CE, the current thought:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Quote:It is to be borne in mind that according to the prevailing opinion among the learned, the fetus is animated by a human soul from the very beginning of its conception.

And from the Vatican, a statement on the thought of the Middle Ages which shows it wasn't limited to Aquinas:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion  (Vatican: Holy See, 1974) II, 7.

Quote:It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods.

Right there you have a change in common teaching; it is possible because it is not dogmatic, de fide, etc.  Limbo falls into the same category.
Reply
#48
(04-25-2010, 11:18 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(04-25-2010, 09:50 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 04:13 PM)Clare Wrote: People who point out that Limbo has never been defined, ignore the fact that it is de fide that infants who die unbaptised are deprived of the Beatific Vision.

Citation?

Certainly, dying without the grace of baptism one cannot get into heaven, and that is de fide, but I know of no de fide teaching that infants who die without Sacramental baptism are necessarily denied the beatific vision if they somehow receive the grace of baptism.

Hoping that unbaptized infants will receive the grace of baptism without martyrdom or the sacrament itself is most definitely a modern innovation based on sentimentality, flatly contradicting the common teaching of the absolute necessity of infant baptism and Baptism as a necessity of means.

We've had this discussion before.  It ends up with you calling heresy an opinion that the Church has not condemned.  You call it heresy based on the fact that you don't like it and think it is stupid, not based on any sane theological argument. 

You deny it based on sentimentality, flatly contradicting the fact that the Church has never condemned it.

In any case, Cajetan et al. were not modernists for believing in a mechanism other than martyrdom or Sacramental baptism; that heresy didn't even exist during his lifetime.  Quit throwing around words you apparently don't understand.


Reply
#49
(04-26-2010, 12:20 AM)JamieF Wrote: The souls of those who die in Original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is much different.
-2nd Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1445) (de fide definita).

True

Quote:The difference in punishment mention is obviously a reference to limbo as there only the punishment of the absence of God for the eternal life of that soul.  This is a de fide definition of limbo.

Show that it is de fide.  You can't.  St. Augustine, for example, thought unbaptized infants went to hell where they suffered, but only a minor torment.  If you can show me a de fide definition of limbo, I'll concede but you won't find one because limbo isn't de fide.

Quote: St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.).


You can't have a definition that is "required of belief" when what it is defining isn't required of belief.

Quote:The only way an unborn child can get to heaven is to receive Baptism (be it of blood, water, etc.) 

Yes, the grace of baptism.  Not Sacramental Baptism.

Quote:To presume that every unborn child is somehow given this baptism by miraculous means renders God's justice worthless and over-exagerates His mercy.

Now it certainly IS modernism to take a doctrine and to not deny it outright, but to find a way to defy it.  For example - we often see modernists saying such things as "yes - there is no salvation outside the Church - BUT, what is the Church?" and they ultimately find a way to incorporate all manner of people into it - even heretics and infidels.  Sometimes it is obviously heresy but most of the time it is not. 

That's different than the discussion here, isn't it?   And that's not a great definition of modernism because the feenyites would fall under it for defining EENS more strictly than the Church does, denying baptism of blood and baptism of desire, yet they are not modernists.

Or are they?
Reply
#50
Limbo is not defined. I agree.

However, according to the book The Teaching of the Catholic Church, page 356:
Quote:... unbaptised children are deprived of the beatific vision of God, which is man's true final end; this is a part of the defined Catholic faith... 

Given that, I don't understand why people are so keen to do away with Limbo.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)