No more Limbo??
#11
(07-24-2018, 05:11 PM)Melkite Wrote: I know I'm taking this off on a tangent, but wouldn't this be evidence that the Church implicitly teaches it is better to not exist at all than to exist in hell?

Well, Our Lord did say of Judas,

Quote:but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. Matthew 26:24
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#12
(07-24-2018, 05:17 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Well, Our Lord did say of Judas,

Quote:but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. Matthew 26:24

That's my understanding too, but I've argued that in previous threads and been told that (in response to the question of why wouldn't God's mercy allow someone to cease to exist rather than experience eternal torment) even in the most unimaginable, eternal torment, it is a greater good that that person continue to exist than to cease.  In response to Judas, I was told that this verse means it would be better if he had died in utero, not that he had never come into existence at all.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#13
(07-24-2018, 04:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: When reading up on Limbo in traditional Catholic books, multiple times I have seen reference to the loss of the beatific vision in Limbo being referred to as punishment. Just like humanity is "punished" with original sin due to the sins of Adam and Eve, infants who die with original sin are punished with loss of the beatific vision for eternity. Otherwise, they are in a state of natural happiness. You are trying to claim St. Augustine believed something different, but he did not.

Punishment follows fault.

The loss of something is only a punishment, properly speaking, if it's loss is due to his own fault. If I drive drunk and thus lose my license, the loss is a punishment because of my crime.

If I don't win the lottery, however, that's hardly a "loss" in a proper way of speaking. I'm not owed a win of the lottery, so there's no injustice in not having it, nor any "punishment" in any meaningful use of the term. Thus is Sanctifying Grace and heaven : it is not owed to us, so its absence is only properly a punishment or pain if its absence is due to a fault.

The loss of Heaven will be the greatest punishment for those who had the chance to be there (all those who had use of reason), but did not go because of their sins. For those who "lose" Heaven, but did nothing to gain or lose it (the unbaptized infant) it will not be a pain, because there will be nothing they have done to lose heaven.

A regards your comment on Original Sin, it is not a "punishment", unless you mean by it the wounds flowing from Original Sin.

Any reputable theologian from far before Benedict XVI and the theological commission question would say that St. Augustine denied Limbo, at least insofar as we understand it as an overstatement against the Pelagians. Would he accept the present common teaching? Probably, but that's not what he wrote, and for a non-theologian as yourself to try to claim that we can read St. Augustine as supporting your view, when that is not what most theolgians would say, should show you that you need to step back from the pontificating.

The imprimatured Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo for instance says (emphasis mine) :

Quote:But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy 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.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: In my previous post I gave an approved definition for Infallibility which confirms the ordinary magisterium utilizes catechisms and imprimaturs.

It does not say "imprimaturs," but censorship and it does so in describing point C, which reads that the ordinary magisterium is exercised "in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope."

How is the approval or disapproval of a book by a bishop of priest deputed by a bishop in a single diocese (what an imprimatur is), and example of "the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope"?

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: You clearly don't believe in the dogma on the infallibility of the Church, which guarantees the Church cannot teach error.

I accept that dogma, but you seem to accept that any action of a Churchman is necessarily infallible, far overextending the highly limited scope of infallibility. By your own standard whenever a bishop writes, approves or teaches something it's infallible.

We've discussed it before, but if that's the standard you are using, then John XXII was a manifest heretic and lost the Papacy ... except he didn't.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: If there were errors in a catechism, this dogma guarantees the magisterium would catch and correct (or condemn) the catechism. You clearly do not believe this and that is why you don't trust catechisms, even those published by popes and Doctors of the Church. You really need to take a close look at what you've been taught!

I never said I distrusted catechisms or doctors of the Church, but that the imprimatur of a book does not make it magisterial. Again, if that's true the neo-Modernist heretic de Lubac is part of the magisterium, since his erroneous works were imprimatured well before Vatican II.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: Regarding your comments on theological opinions, I asked in my last post.... was baptism of desire only considered a theological opinion as of the 1940s when Father Feeney denied it? If so, how then was he condemned as a heretic?

Baptism of Desire is generally considered theological certain, thus Fr Feeney was condemned for error. He was never declared a heretic. The 1949 Holy Office instruction never mentions heresy, only error.

Feeneyism does quickly lead to heresy, though, because one of the only ways to support it and try to seemingly save Catholic doctrine and Trent is to argue that the Sanctifying Grace in Baptism of Desire is different from that of Sacramental Baptism, which is to deny the salvific effect of Sanctifying Grace, which denies something de fide, and thus is heresy.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: The crux of this subject is obviously that of Benedict XVI. I assume you are aware that he approved publication of the report from the Theological Commission which approves of the possibility of infants dying without baptism can go to heaven? That means the infant could obtain heaven without baptism of water, desire, or blood, which is contrary to every Catholic reference that ever existed.

I'm aware of it and figured you were looking to go down this new rabbit hole towards arguing for Sedevacantism. As in the other threads, however, your argument is full of gaping holes as you're an armchair theologian who is far out of your depth.

That's not meant as an insult, nor to say, "look how much I know", but if I can come up with a Catholic Encyclopedia article in two minutes that contradicts you, I think you've probably not done your homework or sufficient study to be making such declarations as you have here.
 
MM,

You accuse me of because of pontificating, and being an armchair theologian. I can easily accuse you of the same.

In our discussions it seems we keep running into the same disagreement on the magisterium, which inevitably affects everything else we discuss. It's very common today for people to misunderstand it, and once this happens, it affects EVERYTHING. I provided an approved quote earlier on the definition of infallibility. In it, it confirms the ordinary magisterium consists of the teaching of the bishops of the Church in union with the pope. It then gives examples of what these bishops utilize to exercise the infallible ordinary magisterium, and includes catechisms, and even preaching.

You and I know very well that catechisms and preaching are not infallible, in and of themselves, so how can the definition of infallibility include catechisms and preaching? Very simply because the Deposit of Faith is ALREADY infallible, so when it is relayed in an intact state, it remains infallible, whether it appears in catechisms or preaching. So for example, the doctrine on baptism of desire is already an infallible doctrine (because it originates in the Deposit of Faith), so it remains infallible wherever it flows (i.e. in the Summa, in encyclicals, in catechisms, and preaching etc.). THIS is how we can say doctrines preached by bishops are infallible (assuming the doctrines are being relayed intact and unchanged).

Likewise, if we look in, "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1917) where it defines the ordinary magisterium, it states, "What the Holy Fathers and the Theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide." Again, you and I know the Holy Fathers and Theologians are not infallible, in and of themselves. But they assist the Bishops (ordinary magisterium) with helping to understand and preach doctrines. If these Theologians come to a general consensus over time on a doctrine, and the Church utilizes it in major catechisms, preaching, etc, the Church assumes ownership and it is considered part of the ordinary magisterium and is infallible, according to this definition.

Several times in our discussions you have mistakenly come to the conclusion that because some random theologian disagreed on the meaning of a doctrine at one point, that this somehow breaks unanimity among Theologians.  That is not the case. With billions of people on this planet it is NORMAL for some theologians to disagree from time to time. It is what the Church generally accepts and utilizes among all the theologians that becomes de fide. We see this at every General Council; some of those present disagree and they eventually come to a consensus. So when a doctrine makes it into a reference such as the Summa, or a catechism, and the bishops use it and propagate it without objection, it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Immaculate Conception confirms that though St. Thomas originally held back on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, his input was important to the final consensus the Church wound up using.

Yes, there are exceptions where theologians differ greatly and there is no general consensus, such as whether the deceased in purgatory can pray for us here on earth. When there is no general consensus, the doctrine isn't considered part of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore won't appear in Church references such as catechisms. In that case, the faithful can believe either view without jeopardizing the faith. These situations are not that common.

You will notice the doctrine on baptism of desire is published in all of the same sources as the doctrine on Limbo; in the Summa, in encyclicals, in the major catechisms, and other trusted references like Catholic encyclopedias and dictionaries. These references are accepted universally throughout the Catholic Church (i.e. used in Catholic schools and seminaries etc without objection) and are therefore part of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM by all definitions found in Catholic references. Imprimaturs are not infallible obviously, but they show that the bishops (ordinary magisterium) approve, so they should be taken seriously.  If in the rare case an imprimatur were wrong, the book would either be corrected in another edition, added to the index, or author condemned by the solemn magisterium. Protections are in place so we can trust imprimaturs.

You say Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for "error", but not heresy. The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 states otherwise; "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...". Pope Pius XII made 3 separate requests for Fr Feeney to come to Rome. Clearly this meeting was to be about Father Feeney's denial of a Catholic doctrine, but when he didn't show after 3 requests, he was excommunicated. His excommunication was ultimately for the denial of a Catholic doctrine (which is the definition of heresy).

As for Benedict XVI approving of the possibility of infants obtaining heaven without baptism, it is contrary to every pope and Catholic reference that came before him and you KNOW it. It is a novelty plain and simple. You know well what this means and you are twisting and squirming every which way to avoid the obvious conclusion.
Reply
#14
(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: MM,

You accuse me of because of pontificating, and being an armchair theologian. I can easily accuse you of the same.

Except as you may note from our earlier interactions I did study Thomistic theology and philosophy in a seminary at a graduate level. I would not claim to be a theological expert, have no interest in being the resident expert here in any way, and may certainly get plenty of things wrong, but that study does suggest that I'm doing more than just pontificating on my own personal interpretation of things.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: In our discussions it seems we keep running into the same disagreement on the magisterium, which inevitably affects everything else we discuss.

I completely agree here.

It is not a disagreement on principles.

We both accept that there is an ordinary magisterium and this is not just some optional thing. We also do not disagree that it involves, as you've quoted above "the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope," and this "ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books."

The problem is in the extension. You wish to take this single quote and make it to mean that if you can find a quote from a book that has an imprimatur that agrees with what you think to be the Faith, then what it says must be held by the faithful as infallible.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: You and I know very well that catechisms and preaching are not infallible, in and of themselves, so how can the definition of infallibility include catechisms and preaching? Very simply because the Deposit of Faith is ALREADY infallible, so when it is relayed in an intact state, it remains infallible, whether it appears in catechisms or preaching. So for example, the doctrine on baptism of desire is already an infallible doctrine (because it originates in the Deposit of Faith), so it remains infallible wherever it flows (i.e. in the Summa, in encyclicals, in catechisms, and preaching etc.). THIS is how we can say doctrines preached by bishops are infallible (assuming the doctrines are being relayed intact and unchanged).

Here is a good example of where you are completely correct, but begin your over-extension.

You are entirely correct that when bishops censor books or preach or issue pastoral letters, or when St. Thomas writes, or a catechism teaches something which is part of the deposit of Faith, then indeed it is just repeating what is infallibly true.

But you're making a circular argument. We have to then wonder what in these letters, catechisms, preaching or even the Summa is a repetition of the deposit of Faith which is infallible and which is the personal theological opinion of the writer, which is not infallible.

There's a step you are leaving out here.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: Likewise, if we look in, "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1917) where it defines the ordinary magisterium, it states, "What the Holy Fathers and the Theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide." Again, you and I know the Holy Fathers and Theologians are not infallible, in and of themselves. But they assist the Bishops (ordinary magisterium) with helping to understand and preach doctrines. If these Theologians come to a general consensus over time on a doctrine, and the Church utilizes it in major catechisms, preaching, etc, the Church assumes ownership and it is considered part of the ordinary magisterium and is infallible, according to this definition.

Several times in our discussions you have mistakenly come to the conclusion that because some random theologian disagreed on the meaning of a doctrine at one point, that this somehow breaks unanimity among Theologians.  That is not the case. With billions of people on this planet it is NORMAL for some theologians to disagree from time to time. It is what the Church generally accepts and utilizes among all the theologians that becomes de fide. We see this at every General Council; some of those present disagree and they eventually come to a consensus. So when a doctrine makes it into a reference such as the Summa, or a catechism, and the bishops use it and propagate it without objection, it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Immaculate Conception confirms that though St. Thomas originally held back on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, his input was important to the final consensus the Church wound up using.

Yes, there are exceptions where theologians differ greatly and there is no general consensus, such as whether the deceased in purgatory can pray for us here on earth. When there is no general consensus, the doctrine isn't considered part of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore won't appear in Church references such as catechisms. In that case, the faithful can believe either view without jeopardizing the faith. These situations are not that common.

Except, having studied theology I can tell you that these situation where there are differing opinions are far more common than you wish to think.

Limbo is a perfect example. Indeed, the general consensus now, is that Limbo exists. One of the greatest theologians of the Church, however, St. Augustine, denied it. That's not "some random theologian".

With St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception, he did not "hold back", but denied it. His rationale was that Our Lady was preserved when her human soul was infused which was some time after her conception, thus while preserved from sin, she was not conceived immaculate. That was based on a false understanding of biology, as we know now, and as the Church has implicitly defined, but St. Thomas was wrong. He was in error.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: You will notice the doctrine on baptism of desire is published in all of the same sources as the doctrine on Limbo; in the Summa, in encyclicals, in the major catechisms, and other trusted references like Catholic encyclopedias and dictionaries. These references are accepted universally throughout the Catholic Church (i.e. used in Catholic schools and seminaries etc without objection) and are therefore part of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM by all definitions found in Catholic references.

The teaching is part of the ordinary magisterium. The references are not.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: Imprimaturs are not infallible obviously, but they show that the bishops (ordinary magisterium) approve, so they should be taken seriously.

Bishops are not the ordinary magisterium by your own definition. They participate in the ordinary magisterium when they teach in union with the Pope, according to your definition.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: If in the rare case an imprimatur were wrong, the book would either be corrected in another edition, added to the index, or author condemned by the solemn magisterium. Protections are in place so we can trust imprimaturs.

The infamous 1966 Dutch Catechism was given an imprimatur by various Dutch bishops and translations in other countries, yet it contained quotes like :

"As everyone can ascertain nowadays, there are several methods of regulating births. The Second Vatican Council did not speak of any of these concrete methods… This is a different standpoint than that taken under Pius XI some thirty years which was also maintained by his successor... we can sense here a clear development in the Church, a development, which is also going on outside the Church."

which despite Humanæ Vitæ the Dutch Bishops refused to remove.

Imprimatur means "let it be printed". It is a single bishop approving of a single text and guaranteeing that according to him and his censor it does not contain anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Clearly the Dutch Catechism does if it is even at odds with Paul VI's teaching.

Again, I think you have a myopic view of the reality of the situations with such censorship, so over-extend its

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: You say Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for "error", but not heresy. The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 states otherwise; "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...". Pope Pius XII made 3 separate requests for Fr Feeney to come to Rome. Clearly this meeting was to be about Father Feeney's denial of a Catholic doctrine, but when he didn't show after 3 requests, he was excommunicated. His excommunication was ultimately for the denial of a Catholic doctrine (which is the definition of heresy).

As you will note from the article about the theolgical notes or grades of certainty even if a teaching is part of the Catholic doctrine, there are degrees. Denial of what is part of the Faith (i.e. it is revealed at least virtually) is heresy. Denial of what is a theological certainty is error.

Fr Feeney denied a Catholic doctrine, yes, but not one which is de fide (revealed). He denied one which is theologically certain. This is called error.

Canon Law defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."

If you will note from the Catholic Encyclopaedia article earlier cited on Theological Censures :

"A proposition is branded heretical when it goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide; erroneous when it contradicts only a certain (certa) theological conclusion or truth clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith, the other naturally certain."

Baptism of Desire is in the latter category, so while part of Catholic teaching, and something the ordinary magisterium has infallibly taught, it still is not heresy to deny it. It is error, which still carries with it a grave sin and for a cleric like Fr Feeney the possibility of grave censures, even excommunication.

If Fr Feeney had professed a heresy, he would have been automatically excommunicated. He was not. He was only later declared excommunicated.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: As for Benedict XVI approving of the possibility of infants obtaining heaven without baptism, it is contrary to every pope and Catholic reference that came before him and you KNOW it. It is a novelty plain and simple. You know well what this means and you are twisting and squirming every which way to avoid the obvious conclusion.

I do not deny that the idea that Limbo does not exist and unbaptized children go to heaven is contrary to Catholic teaching. The idea that Limbo does not exist and all unbaptized are damned is not the common Catholic teaching, but is taught by St. Augustine and many other theologians.

I do not defend Benedict XVI in this, but it is your over-extension and misunderstanding (and zeal to come up with an argument for this "obvious conclusion") that make it so "obvious" to you, but a bad argument.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#15
(07-26-2018, 12:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: MM,

You accuse me of because of pontificating, and being an armchair theologian. I can easily accuse you of the same.

Except as you may note from our earlier interactions I did study Thomistic theology and philosophy in a seminary at a graduate level. I would not claim to be a theological expert, have no interest in being the resident expert here in any way, and may certainly get plenty of things wrong, but that study does suggest that I'm doing more than just pontificating on my own personal interpretation of things.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: In our discussions it seems we keep running into the same disagreement on the magisterium, which inevitably affects everything else we discuss.

I completely agree here.

It is not a disagreement on principles.

We both accept that there is an ordinary magisterium and this is not just some optional thing. We also do not disagree that it involves, as you've quoted above "the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope," and this "ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books."

The problem is in the extension. You wish to take this single quote and make it to mean that if you can find a quote from a book that has an imprimatur that agrees with what you think to be the Faith, then what it says must be held by the faithful as infallible.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: You and I know very well that catechisms and preaching are not infallible, in and of themselves, so how can the definition of infallibility include catechisms and preaching? Very simply because the Deposit of Faith is ALREADY infallible, so when it is relayed in an intact state, it remains infallible, whether it appears in catechisms or preaching. So for example, the doctrine on baptism of desire is already an infallible doctrine (because it originates in the Deposit of Faith), so it remains infallible wherever it flows (i.e. in the Summa, in encyclicals, in catechisms, and preaching etc.). THIS is how we can say doctrines preached by bishops are infallible (assuming the doctrines are being relayed intact and unchanged).

Here is a good example of where you are completely correct, but begin your over-extension.

You are entirely correct that when bishops censor books or preach or issue pastoral letters, or when St. Thomas writes, or a catechism teaches something which is part of the deposit of Faith, then indeed it is just repeating what is infallibly true.

But you're making a circular argument. We have to then wonder what in these letters, catechisms, preaching or even the Summa is a repetition of the deposit of Faith which is infallible and which is the personal theological opinion of the writer, which is not infallible.

There's a step you are leaving out here.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: Likewise, if we look in, "A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1917) where it defines the ordinary magisterium, it states, "What the Holy Fathers and the Theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide." Again, you and I know the Holy Fathers and Theologians are not infallible, in and of themselves. But they assist the Bishops (ordinary magisterium) with helping to understand and preach doctrines. If these Theologians come to a general consensus over time on a doctrine, and the Church utilizes it in major catechisms, preaching, etc, the Church assumes ownership and it is considered part of the ordinary magisterium and is infallible, according to this definition.

Several times in our discussions you have mistakenly come to the conclusion that because some random theologian disagreed on the meaning of a doctrine at one point, that this somehow breaks unanimity among Theologians.  That is not the case. With billions of people on this planet it is NORMAL for some theologians to disagree from time to time. It is what the Church generally accepts and utilizes among all the theologians that becomes de fide. We see this at every General Council; some of those present disagree and they eventually come to a consensus. So when a doctrine makes it into a reference such as the Summa, or a catechism, and the bishops use it and propagate it without objection, it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Immaculate Conception confirms that though St. Thomas originally held back on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, his input was important to the final consensus the Church wound up using.

Yes, there are exceptions where theologians differ greatly and there is no general consensus, such as whether the deceased in purgatory can pray for us here on earth. When there is no general consensus, the doctrine isn't considered part of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore won't appear in Church references such as catechisms. In that case, the faithful can believe either view without jeopardizing the faith. These situations are not that common.

Except, having studied theology I can tell you that these situation where there are differing opinions are far more common than you wish to think.

Limbo is a perfect example. Indeed, the general consensus now, is that Limbo exists. One of the greatest theologians of the Church, however, St. Augustine, denied it. That's not "some random theologian".

With St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception, he did not "hold back", but denied it. His rationale was that Our Lady was preserved when her human soul was infused which was some time after her conception, thus while preserved from sin, she was not conceived immaculate. That was based on a false understanding of biology, as we know now, and as the Church has implicitly defined, but St. Thomas was wrong. He was in error.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: You will notice the doctrine on baptism of desire is published in all of the same sources as the doctrine on Limbo; in the Summa, in encyclicals, in the major catechisms, and other trusted references like Catholic encyclopedias and dictionaries. These references are accepted universally throughout the Catholic Church (i.e. used in Catholic schools and seminaries etc without objection) and are therefore part of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM by all definitions found in Catholic references.

The teaching is part of the ordinary magisterium. The references are not.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: Imprimaturs are not infallible obviously, but they show that the bishops (ordinary magisterium) approve, so they should be taken seriously.

Bishops are not the ordinary magisterium by your own definition. They participate in the ordinary magisterium when they teach in union with the Pope, according to your definition.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: If in the rare case an imprimatur were wrong, the book would either be corrected in another edition, added to the index, or author condemned by the solemn magisterium. Protections are in place so we can trust imprimaturs.

The infamous 1966 Dutch Catechism was given an imprimatur by various Dutch bishops and translations in other countries, yet it contained quotes like :

"As everyone can ascertain nowadays, there are several methods of regulating births. The Second Vatican Council did not speak of any of these concrete methods… This is a different standpoint than that taken under Pius XI some thirty years which was also maintained by his successor... we can sense here a clear development in the Church, a development, which is also going on outside the Church."

which despite Humanæ Vitæ the Dutch Bishops refused to remove.

Imprimatur means "let it be printed". It is a single bishop approving of a single text and guaranteeing that according to him and his censor it does not contain anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Clearly the Dutch Catechism does if it is even at odds with Paul VI's teaching.

Again, I think you have a myopic view of the reality of the situations with such censorship, so over-extend its

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: You say Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for "error", but not heresy. The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 states otherwise; "Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities...". Pope Pius XII made 3 separate requests for Fr Feeney to come to Rome. Clearly this meeting was to be about Father Feeney's denial of a Catholic doctrine, but when he didn't show after 3 requests, he was excommunicated. His excommunication was ultimately for the denial of a Catholic doctrine (which is the definition of heresy).

As you will note from the article about the theolgical notes or grades of certainty even if a teaching is part of the Catholic doctrine, there are degrees. Denial of what is part of the Faith (i.e. it is revealed at least virtually) is heresy. Denial of what is a theological certainty is error.

Fr Feeney denied a Catholic doctrine, yes, but not one which is de fide (revealed). He denied one which is theologically certain. This is called error.

Canon Law defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."

If you will note from the Catholic Encyclopaedia article earlier cited on Theological Censures :

"A proposition is branded heretical when it goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide; erroneous when it contradicts only a certain (certa) theological conclusion or truth clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith, the other naturally certain."

Baptism of Desire is in the latter category, so while part of Catholic teaching, and something the ordinary magisterium has infallibly taught, it still is not heresy to deny it. It is error, which still carries with it a grave sin and for a cleric like Fr Feeney the possibility of grave censures, even excommunication.

If Fr Feeney had professed a heresy, he would have been automatically excommunicated. He was not. He was only later declared excommunicated.

(07-25-2018, 11:24 AM)pabbie Wrote: As for Benedict XVI approving of the possibility of infants obtaining heaven without baptism, it is contrary to every pope and Catholic reference that came before him and you KNOW it. It is a novelty plain and simple. You know well what this means and you are twisting and squirming every which way to avoid the obvious conclusion.

I do not deny that the idea that Limbo does not exist and unbaptized children go to heaven is contrary to Catholic teaching. The idea that Limbo does not exist and all unbaptized are damned is not the common Catholic teaching, but is taught by St. Augustine and many other theologians.

I do not defend Benedict XVI in this, but it is your over-extension and misunderstanding (and zeal to come up with an argument for this "obvious conclusion") that make it so "obvious" to you, but a bad argument.
 
Hello MM,

Thanks for the reply. Regarding Catholic education today, given the errors that have flooded the local dioceses and overall bad fruits of Vatican II, I consider post-Vatican II education to be of little value. Unfortunately people who learn their faith after Vatican II think what they have learned is normal and Catholic. When they are presented with traditional Catholicism (which often has major differences), they don't like it because it's not what they learned first. Someone with a pre-Vatican II Catholic education like myself immediately sees how incredibly non-Catholic the post-Vatican II Church has become. It's like night and day and what we are seeing in the local dioceses now is basically a whole new religion. Looking at other posts in the forum, everyone else is starting to see it too. So I look at pre-Vatican II education as priceless because few living people have it. Some can call it "pontificating", but I call it defense of Catholic truth.

Regarding your comments on some theologians occasionally disagreeing, I will repeat that it is completely normal and expected. Go look at the proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils and you will see occasional disagreements, but as long as those disagreeing fall in line with what is ultimately decided and used by the Church, there is no harm done and no break in unanimity of teaching. It certainly can't be expected to make hundreds of bishops from all over the world all agree 100% all the time. As long as they accept the final decision as being that of the Church, all is fine.

I have seen it many times before where people like yourself like to throw around the phrase "theological opinion" very often as then it provides a loophole excusing you from having to believe something. Looking through my Catholic references, references to theological opinions are not common. They typically apply to uncommon doctrines, such as the example I gave was whether the souls in purgatory can pray for the living. This is an obscure doctrine that is not talked about much, and really doesn't matter much either way, and since there is no majority consensus on it, the Church allows the faithful to believe either way. However we haven't been discussing a theological opinion in Limbo.  You try to separate the doctrine from the ordinary magisterium and you have no grounds for doing so given that all definitions of the ordinary magisterium refer to it as simply the ordinary everyday teaching of the Church, whether by preaching or writing. A Catholic can't just pick a Catholic teaching and declare it is not ordinary magisterium when Popes and Doctors of the Church have been continuously promoting it and allowing it to propagate.  An applicable quote:
  • Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Dogma: "...some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”
This quote confirms  the weight behind the ordinary everyday teaching of the Church. If a doctrine is taught day to day in the Church, it is considered a dogma, and Catholics must believe it.

The Church teaches that both Baptism of desire and Limbo originate in Scripture, which means they are revealed doctrines. This is why we see both taught continuously throughout the history of the Church without ambiguity and without allowing multiple opinions. This certainly excludes them from being theological opinions. A perfect example is to look at the Baltimore catechism which teaches both baptism of desire and the doctrine on Limbo.  This catechism was approved for all schools in the US by Pope Leo XIII, and all of his successors upheld his decision so that the catechism remained in US schools throughout most of the 20th century.  Teaching approved by a century of popes is OBVIOUSLY the ordinary magisterium in action!

I know you say you believe the dogma of infallibility of the Church and that the Church is "the pillar and ground of truth", but your constant objections to traditional Catholic teaching over the centuries directly conflicts with this belief. This is expected only because Vatican II has resulted in so many changes that cannot possibly be reconciled with the traditional teaching of the Church.  Before 1958, there was no problem with people understanding that the Church was incapable of teaching error because Catholic teaching was consistent one generation to the next.
Reply
#16
Growing up in the 40s, 50s and 60s, Limbo was understood by most Catholics as a place where unbaptised babies go for all eternity, a place of perfect natural happiness but without the Beatific vision.

Never defined as a dogma yes, nevertheless it reflected a most Catholic position, one that demonstrated the mercy of God. Recently I read St Augustine said unbaptised go to Hell. If we narrow these down to the unborn, even those not of the age of reason, did he mean  the Hell of the damned or the Hell Jesus visited after death, a 'hell' that was not of the damned but of the unbaptised before baptism was introduced by John the Baptist.

I must say that it is well know that Augustine and Aquinas dod not always get their opinions correct. Recently I read St Augustine's objection to a six literal days of creation was on the basis of God creating light before the sun which he believed was impossible. I found it strange that Augustine would find someting impossible for God.  If Augustine were alive today he would know that light is an electromagnetic effect and does not need the sun to give light. Did Augustine never see lightning at night lighting up the heavens? If St Augustine returned to Earth today and saw the place lit up with electric bulbs would he still deny light needs the sun. Given that because Augustine believed this error, a six literal days of creation could not be made a dogma and opened up the creative act to billions of years of evolution rather than the ex nihilo of Catholic teaching.

It was when Pope John Paul II said he 'hoped' (I think) that unbaptised babies go to heaven that I realised the NON-DOGMA of LIMBO was coming back to haunt the Church. If a pope could play around with the fate of unbaptised babies, why then would anybody object to ABORTION? If all dead unbaptised babies could go to heaven, and the chances are that if they lived many would sin and go to Hell, why would a Catholic object to abortion? I once tried to argue that Catholic pro-life groups should emphasise it is the PREVENTION OF SOULS GOING TO HEAVEN that is the real crime of abortion. They didn't want to know. So pro-life groups are secular rather than Catholic.

Which leads me to a recent abortion referendum in Ireland, a country that is supposedly 80% Catholic. One third didn't bother to vote, and a majority voted for the killing of unborn. This in turn was followed by a few priests saying Catholics who voted for abortion should go to confession. Bishop Martin of Dublin took one parish priest for saying this out of his parish and sent him 'out of harms way' to look after a few retired nuns in Donegal.

So, Catholics, on a Friday, can vote to kill babies and PREVENT THEIR SOULS OBTAINING THE BEATIFIC VISION, and on Saturday go to confession so that they can go to heaven and enjoy the Beatific Vision. Picture the scene, one of these get to the gate of heaven. 'And where do you think you are going' asks St Peter. 'In to heaven' says the one who got Saturday confession. 'And you think you can get in here after guaranteeing millions of souls up to the end of mankind cannot get in here' asks St Peter.

Finally, as a Catholic who believes in Limbo as reflecting the justice and mercy of God, and rejecting the belief that God would condemn to Hell souls He created knowing they would die before baptism, I was shocked to read St Augustine say they would go to Hell if he meant the Hell of the Damned. If God created a place down under the Earth for souls who died before Christ redeemed us, then why show mercy to them and not today's unbaptised under the age of reason? Is LIMBO not worthy of belief among Catholics?
Reply
#17
(07-27-2018, 06:22 AM)cassini Wrote: Growing up in the 40s, 50s and 60s, Limbo was understood by most Catholics as a place where unbaptised babies go for all eternity, a place of perfect natural happiness but without the Beatific vision.

Never defined as a dogma yes, nevertheless it reflected a most Catholic position, one that demonstrated the mercy of God. Recently I read St Augustine said unbaptised go to Hell. If we narrow these down to the unborn, even those not of the age of reason, did he mean  the Hell of the damned or the Hell Jesus visited after death, a 'hell' that was not of the damned but of the unbaptised before baptism was introduced by John the Baptist.

I must say that it is well know that Augustine and Aquinas dod not always get their opinions correct. Recently I read St Augustine's objection to a six literal days of creation was on the basis of God creating light before the sun which he believed was impossible. I found it strange that Augustine would find someting impossible for God.  If Augustine were alive today he would know that light is an electromagnetic effect and does not need the sun to give light. Did Augustine never see lightning at night lighting up the heavens? If St Augustine returned to Earth today and saw the place lit up with electric bulbs would he still deny light needs the sun. Given that because Augustine believed this error, a six literal days of creation could not be made a dogma and opened up the creative act to billions of years of evolution rather than the ex nihilo of Catholic teaching.

It was when Pope John Paul II said he 'hoped' (I think) that unbaptised babies go to heaven that I realised the NON-DOGMA of LIMBO was coming back to haunt the Church. If a pope could play around with the fate of unbaptised babies, why then would anybody object to ABORTION? If all dead unbaptised babies could go to heaven, and the chances are that if they lived many would sin and go to Hell, why would a Catholic object to abortion? I once tried to argue that Catholic pro-life groups should emphasise it is the PREVENTION OF SOULS GOING TO HEAVEN that is the real crime of abortion. They didn't want to know. So pro-life groups are secular rather than Catholic.

Which leads me to a recent abortion referendum in Ireland, a country that is supposedly 80% Catholic. One third didn't bother to vote, and a majority voted for the killing of unborn. This in turn was followed by a few priests saying Catholics who voted for abortion should go to confession. Bishop Martin of Dublin took one parish priest for saying this out of his parish and sent him 'out of harms way' to look after a few retired nuns in Donegal.

So, Catholics, on a Friday, can vote to kill babies and PREVENT THEIR SOULS OBTAINING THE BEATIFIC VISION, and on Saturday go to confession so that they can go to heaven and enjoy the Beatific Vision. Picture the scene, one of these get to the gate of heaven. 'And where do you think you are going' asks St Peter. 'In to heaven' says the one who got Saturday confession. 'And you think you can get in here after guaranteeing millions of souls up to the end of mankind cannot get in here' asks St Peter.

Finally, as a Catholic who believes in Limbo as reflecting the justice and mercy of God, and rejecting the belief that God would condemn to Hell souls He created knowing they would die before baptism, I was shocked to read St Augustine say they would go to Hell if he meant the Hell of the Damned. If God created a place down under the Earth for souls who died before Christ redeemed us, then why show mercy to them and not today's unbaptised under the age of reason? Is LIMBO not worthy of belief among Catholics?

Your reasoning has a couple problems:

1: If Limbo is an example of God's mercy, then it means his mercy is bound by formula.  If original sin alone justly demands eternal punishment, such that Limbo is a mercy for those who have no actual sin, then limbo either binds God to a limit on his mercy (blasphemy to even suggest) or it means God isn't all-merciful, but only capriciously merciful (also blasphemy).  If God can be merciful and allow unbaptized infants to experience natural happiness in limbo, why can't he just be merciful and extraordinarily save them without physical baptism?  God's law binds us, not him.  We may not be permitted to depend on extraordinary measures, but it does not mean God is bound to withhold them, if they are something he is potent to fulfill.

2: The abortion argument is a non-sequitur.  If it follows from God allowing unbaptized infants into heaven, that it is a mercy to abort them in utero, then it also follows that it would be a mercy to children to drown them in the baptismal font as soon as the final words of baptism fall from the priest's mouth.  What better way to ensure a child entrance into heaven than to kill him as soon as his original sin has been washed away?  For some reason, life is better, even if it means heaven is delayed, or even possibly lost.  Just as we don't kill children after baptism, even though allowing them to live means they will more than likely lose their soul, we don't condone abortion, even though they may enter heaven by it as a mercy of God.  

Your reasoning is too legalistic, and your conclusions unnecessary.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#18
(07-27-2018, 09:19 AM)Melkite Wrote: Your reasoning has a couple problems:

1: If Limbo is an example of God's mercy, then it means his mercy is bound by formula.  If original sin alone justly demands eternal punishment, such that Limbo is a mercy for those who have no actual sin, then limbo either binds God to a limit on his mercy (blasphemy to even suggest) or it means God isn't all-merciful, but only capriciously merciful (also blasphemy).  If God can be merciful and allow unbaptized infants to experience natural happiness in limbo, why can't he just be merciful and extraordinarily save them without physical baptism?  God's law binds us, not him.  We may not be permitted to depend on extraordinary measures, but it does not mean God is bound to withhold them, if they are something he is potent to fulfill.

2: The abortion argument is a non-sequitur.  If it follows from God allowing unbaptized infants into heaven, that it is a mercy to abort them in utero, then it also follows that it would be a mercy to children to drown them in the baptismal font as soon as the final words of baptism fall from the priest's mouth.  What better way to ensure a child entrance into heaven than to kill him as soon as his original sin has been washed away?  For some reason, life is better, even if it means heaven is delayed, or even possibly lost.  Just as we don't kill children after baptism, even though allowing them to live means they will more than likely lose their soul, we don't condone abortion, even though they may enter heaven by it as a mercy of God.  

Your reasoning is too legalistic, and your conclusions unnecessary.

The unborn, children willed by God to be with him in heaven, are killed or die before Baptism, they do not get a chance to live a life that could earn them a place in Heaven. Were the Innocents, killed before baptism, destined to Hell? Where did they go? What about those unbaptised martyred in their wombs today because their mother was a Christian. Where do they go? Personally I cannot see God sending them to Hell.

To be honest Melkite I cannot make head nor tail of your No 1 theology above, it is a theology putting restrictions on God as I read it. If Jesus on the Cross can take to Heaven an unbaptised thief, then He could also create a Limbo for those never given the chance to live a life that would determine their destiny. My Catholicism hopes this is true and no made-up theology will change that.

Your no 2 is equally absurd in the context of what I said above. I said that warning those Christians who call themselves Christian that killing the unborn prevents them from entering Heaven, then they might not vote for it, abort their own, or remain neutral abouit it.

Comparing the fate of aborted children, who are KILLED before birth let alone baptism, with live baptised children being killed by their parents so they get to Heaven quicker is a comparison too much for me.
Reply
#19
(07-27-2018, 10:32 AM)cassini Wrote: The unborn, children willed by God to be with him in heaven, are killed or die before Baptism, they do not get a chance to live a life that could earn them a place in Heaven. Were the Innocents, killed before baptism, destined to Hell? Where did they go? What about those unbaptised martyred in their wombs today because their mother was a Christian. Where do they go? Personally I cannot see God sending them to Hell. 

To be honest Melkite I cannot make head nor tail of your No 1 theology above, it is a theology putting restrictions on God as I read it. If Jesus on the Cross can take to Heaven an unbaptised thief, then He could also create a Limbo for those never given the chance to live a life that would determine their destiny. My Catholicism hopes this is true and no made-up theology will change that.

It's actually your view that puts a restriction on God.  Limbo restrains God from allowing them into heaven.  

The ordinary means of entering heaven is through baptism.  You would agree that the deserved punishment for original sin is hell, right?  So, if limbo is God being merciful, withholding some of the due punishment, for lack of a better phrase, then God could just as easily be merciful and allow the person to enter heaven.  Limbo is an entirely unnecessary, extra step.  I also cannot see God sending them to hell, which is why I have no problem seeing God allowing them into heaven.  If Jesus can take to Heaven an unbaptized thief, he can certainly also take to heaven an unbaptized infant.  There is no need for limbo if you do not bind God to the law that he binds us to.

Quote:Your no 2 is equally absurd in the context of what I said above. I said that warning those Christians who call themselves Christian that killing the unborn prevents them from entering Heaven, then they might not vote for it, abort their own, or remain neutral abouit it.

Comparing the fate of aborted children, who are KILLED before birth let alone baptism, with live baptised children being killed by their parents so they get to Heaven quicker is a comparison too much for me.

Your argument that if unbaptized infants go to heaven, abortion should be encouraged to ensure that their soul goes to heaven.  The logic in that suggestion is that it is better to kill a person when they have the most chance of going to heaven than it is to allow them to live and possibly lose heaven.  By that logic, then, we should kill baptized infants to ensure that they go to heaven as well.  If it's a comparison too much for you, then rational thought is too much for you, as the one logically follows from the other.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#20
One other point to be made on the subject. I noticed many Catholics have recently been trying to use the argument (to try and bypass the traditional teaching on Limbo), that God is all merciful and "why can't He just save the unbaptized child". Obviously God can do anything, but Jesus has set the rules in Scripture, and everyone is judged by them equally, so we can't as Catholics start bending the rules on our own.

If we can bend the rule on unbaptized children, then next people will start creating further loopholes, such as, saying why can't God allow fornication, because doesn't he want us to be happy? Or why can't God allow us to stay home on Sundays instead of go to Mass - can't God hear us from home and provide us grace is directly there? Or why can't I put my grandfather out of his misery to save him from suffering, he was going to die anyway. The sky's the limit once we start bending the rules.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)