My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
#53
(03-17-2017, 08:06 PM)richgr Wrote: Gregory, I think the point of contention here is that you are not merely disagreeing with the majority view by drawing attention to the view held by most between Augustine and Aquinas, but you are making the further and stronger claim that those who side with Aquinas and the theologians following him are implicitly committing themselves to Pelagianism by saying the infants of limbo enjoy perfect natural happiness. Those are two separate claims: 1) offering the countering view for legitimate debate; and 2) saying those who take the opposing side are materially proximate to heresy.

But you're offering an argument only for point 1) and claiming it extends to point 2) when it's not clear to me that your argument actually does. You can claim that the magisterium has implied from the dogmas that point 2) approaches heresy, but then we're faced with a further dilemma, namely, how could the magisterium never had issued any warning to St. Thomas and the following theologians about this danger and even more so, how could these generations of deeply learned theologians have missed such an apparently obvious problem, namely, they're approaching heresy. In the debates over predestination and sufficient/efficacious grace, the Pope did have to intervene because the accusations towards the opposing groups of theological thought became increasingly ad hominem, especially saying that each side approached a heretical view, either Pelagianism for the Molinists or Calvinism for the Thomists. Here we have a historical example of the Church stepping into the debate to at least clarify that it was not proper for the opposing camps to accuse each other of implicit heresy. But you don't have the same thing occurring in the debates over Limbo (unless I'm ignorant about this, in which case you can bring it up for us).

So I think it comes down to you explaining more clearly why you think point 2) in addition to point 1). It seems to me unnecessary to hold point 2); you can say that it is only logical, but again I would bring up what I said above: how could so many generations of theologians, far more studied and profound than yourself, you must admit out of humility at least, have missed such a logical gap? Perhaps, then, you are going a little too far in making that claim of implicit Pelagianism.

Thank you for such a clear response.

Maybe I am wrong. But something just strikes me as wrong about perfect natural happiness, unless I am misunderstanding it. Would we contend it is the state of nature Adam possessed if he was not gifted with grace but not guilty of sin? Nevertheless, the dogma teaches the whole man was changed for the worse, body and soul, in Adam. Is the only "worse" being posited for unbaptized infants that they are not justified? But then are all people born into a state of pure nature? Thoughts?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants. - by Gregory I - 03-17-2017, 09:24 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)