Prayer for the baptism of aborted babies
#51
(04-26-2010, 01:24 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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.

Fecundation and hominization were not ever de fide issues - limbo, on the other hand, was held to be de fide as I previously said.

This is also the same issue that causes people to wrongly think St Thomas Aquinas didn't believe in the immaculate conception - he did as can be seen in this quote:

Nec solum a peccato actuali immunis fuit, sed etiam ab originali, speciali privilegio mundata, which means: being given a special privilege, she was immune not only from actual sin, but also from original sin.

He believed that the matter formed in her fecundation had POTENTIAL for original sin but that at the hominization that potential was never realized and she was immaculate.  Therefore, she never carried the stain of original sin.
Reply
#52
Let me put it this way:

It is de fide that the unbaptised go to hell
It is de fide that the punishment of the unbaptised is less than that of the baptised

The place in which this lesser punishment occurs is what we call limbo [which is situated in hell.]

Furthermore, while it does not expressly mention the limbo of the infants, the Bible tells us that Limbo exists - therefore it must. Luke 16:22-31 describes Lazarus going to the Bosom of Abraham- this is the limbo of the fathers.  Jesus we know from the creed descended into hell (limbo of the fathers) to free the souls of the just Jews so they would enter Heaven.  If the limbo of the fathers is taught in the Bible and has always been believed to be a real place - why is it so hard to believe that the limbo of the infants doesn't exist?

Limbo is the only way you can explain the two de fide statements that were made earlier.  This is a perfectly sound operation of theology - deducing a third truth from two revealed truth or one revealed truth and one truth reasoned to.

Reply
#53
Here is one more quote btw:

"The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only
26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."

The papal bull Auctorem Fidei by Pope Paul VI, 1794: http://www.catholicresearch.org/Decrees/...Fidei.html

So Limbo is in the scriptures, the creed, follows reasonably from the infallible decrees regarding the final place of those who die unbaptised, and is defended in the above Papal letter.
Reply
#54
(04-26-2010, 04:53 AM)JamieF Wrote: limbo, on the other hand, was held to be de fide as I previously said.

Prove it.  Cite denziger or something.  Limbo was never de fide (i.e., dogmatic).



Reply
#55
(04-26-2010, 05:08 AM)JamieF Wrote: Let me put it this way:

It is de fide that the unbaptised go to hell

No, it is de fide that those who do not receive the grace of baptism go to hell.

Quote:It is de fide that the punishment of the unbaptised is less than that of the baptised

No, it is de fide that those only guilty of original sin are punished less than those who are guilty of actual sin.

Denziger 410 Wrote:We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent; and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent. . . . The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. . . .

But if you have a citation that supports your position, please cite it.

Quote:The place in which this lesser punishment occurs is what we call limbo [which is situated in hell.]

No, because a grown man can die with no sin other than original.  Limbo is a theory that is given only to infants.  Or are you suggesting a grown man who committed no actual sin will go to limbo instead of hell proper?

Quote:Furthermore, while it does not expressly mention the limbo of the infants, the Bible tells us that Limbo exists - therefore it must. Luke 16:22-31 describes Lazarus going to the Bosom of Abraham- this is the limbo of the fathers.  Jesus we know from the creed descended into hell (limbo of the fathers) to free the souls of the just Jews so they would enter Heaven.  If the limbo of the fathers is taught in the Bible and has always been believed to be a real place - why is it so hard to believe that the limbo of the infants doesn't exist?

One is free to believe it; it isn't de fide.  The limbo of the fathers is a completely different concept.  Original sin was remitted by circumcision under the old law - eternal damnation was avoided; what wasn't opened were the gates of heaven.

Denziger 410 Wrote:Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.

Quote:Limbo is the only way you can explain the two de fide statements that were made earlier.  This is a perfectly sound operation of theology - deducing a third truth from two revealed truth or one revealed truth and one truth reasoned to.

Your statements were flawed.  Correct them and we'll look at the result.
Reply
#56
(04-26-2010, 05:17 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-26-2010, 04:53 AM)JamieF Wrote: limbo, on the other hand, was held to be de fide as I previously said.

Prove it.  Cite denziger or something.  Limbo was never de fide (i.e., dogmatic).

Due to the constant teaching of limbo by the Church from the begining (and even in revelation from God - insofar as limbo of the fathers is concerned) we can say it is at the very least de fide ecclesiastica.  It may not have been defined "definita" but it can be clearly deduced from de fide definita declarations and for that reason it has always been taught to be true.

Basically - to reject it you are saying that children in hell suffer physical torments, which is contrary to dogma.  And if there is a place in hell in which physical torments do not take place, in which are housed the unbaptised infants, that is the place we call limbo.
Reply
#57
(04-26-2010, 05:37 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Original sin was remitted by circumcision under the old law ....

Did circumcision remit original sin? What about women?
Reply
#58
(04-26-2010, 05:15 AM)JamieF Wrote: Here is one more quote btw:

"The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only
26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."

The papal bull Auctorem Fidei by Pope Paul VI, 1794: http://www.catholicresearch.org/Decrees/...Fidei.html

It is false and rash to reject it as a Pelagian fable there is nothing wrong with considering it an unproven posit, which it is.

Quote:So Limbo is in the scriptures, the creed, follows reasonably from the infallible decrees regarding the final place of those who die unbaptised, and is defended in the above Papal letter.

You cannot mix the limbo of the fathers and the limbo of infants.  They are two different concepts.  The limbo of the fathers was given to those who were remitted from original sin by circumcision under the Old Covenant.  Once Christ died and harrowed hell, the limbo of the Fathers ended as all were brought into Heaven, the gates being opened.  The limbo of infants is never harrowed and is for eternity.
Reply
#59
(04-26-2010, 05:38 AM)JamieF Wrote:
(04-26-2010, 05:17 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-26-2010, 04:53 AM)JamieF Wrote: limbo, on the other hand, was held to be de fide as I previously said.

Prove it.  Cite denziger or something.  Limbo was never de fide (i.e., dogmatic).

Due to the constant teaching of limbo by the Church from the begining (and even in revelation from God - insofar as limbo of the fathers is concerned) we can say it is at the very least de fide ecclesiastica.  It may not have been defined "definita" but it can be clearly deduced from de fide definita declarations and for that reason it has always been taught to be true.

Cite it in Denziger then.  This is your conjecture and understanding of theological development, not a statement of the Church.  In fact, the Church stated otherwise recently, didn't it?

Quote:Basically - to reject it you are saying that children in hell suffer physical torments, which is contrary to dogma.  And if there is a place in hell in which physical torments do not take place, in which are housed the unbaptised infants, that is the place we call limbo.

No one in hell suffers physical torments because they won't have bodies until the Second Coming. 

You're missing a lot of pieces.  The problem isn't that simple.

Do infants in limbo suffer from the loss of the Beatific Vision?  Do they even know what they are missing?

What about this statement:

Denziger 493a Wrote:493a It (The Roman Church) teaches. . . . . that the souls . . . . . of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.

The Augustinian approach, where there is some degree of suffering, fell out of favor but was never condemned; i.e., those who die only in original sin have some degree of suffering.  They may only feel loss at the lack of the Beatific Vision, but that is still suffering.

You are taking a theological argument and trying to raise it to the level of dogma - a theological certainty.  You don't have that authority, sorry, and the question is a lot more complicated that it seems at first.
Reply
#60
Okay - we agree that there are differing degrees of punishment in hell.  Following the teachings of the Church through history (albeit not through an infallible declaration) I call that part of hell in which the lesser punishment is met out "limbo".  You don't.  This is semantics and there is little point in arguing it further.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)