Errors Of The Pope

[Apotheoun]

[i]Limbus puerorum[/i] is a theological construct of the Scholastics, which was intended to answer a problem inherent to the Augustinian understanding of salvation. That said, it is important to note that St. Augustine's writings were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; and so, they had no influence at all on the doctrinal formulations of the Eastern Churches in connection with the [i]vision of God[/i], [i]sacramental theology[/i], [i]predestination[/i], or the nature of [i]grace[/i].

As far as babies being born "saved," in one sense this is true, because -- as St. Maximos taught -- all of humanity has been redeemed and given ever-being by the incarnation of the eternal Logos (cf. St. John Chrysostom, [i]Homily 9[/i], no. 5; and St. Gregory Palamas, [i]Capita Physica[/i], no. 78). But divine glory is not imparted simply by the incarnation; instead, it is given both sacramentally and by living the life of virtue. Taking into account what I have said so far, the teaching of St. Maximos (and St. Ireneaus) becomes clear, for as St. Maximos explained: "The Church knows three apokatastases. One is the [apokatastasis] of everything according to the principle ([i]logos[/i]) of virtue; in this apokatastasis one is restored who fulfills the principle of virtue in himself. The second is that of the whole [human nature] in the Resurrection. This is the apokatastasis to incorruption and immortality. The third, in the oft-cited words of Gregory of Nyssa, is the apokatastasis of the powers of the soul which, having lapsed into sin, are again restored to that condition in which they were created. For it is necessary that just as the entire nature of the flesh hopes in time to be taken up again into incorruption in the apokatastasis, so also the powers of the soul, having become distorted during the course of the ages had instilled in it a memory of evil, so that at the end of ages, not finding any rest, will come to God Who has no limit. And thus the distorted powers of the soul will be taken up into the primeval apokatastasis, into a merely discursive knowledge of, but not into the participation in, the good things [of God], where the Creator is known yet without being the cause of [their] sin." [St. Maximos, [i]Thalassium[/i] PG 90:796BC]

Finally, the reason that Eastern Christians reject the Scholastic notion of "limbo" is centered upon the fact that there is but one end for man, just as there is but one beginning (i.e., God). Thus, the final end of man (both of the damned and the saved) is God, but how each person experiences this end is determined by the action of their own will in synergy with the uncreated divine energy.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1276626' date='May 18 2007, 11:30 AM']The statement "there is no 'limbo' nor is an innocent person damned" may just be a matter of semantics.[/quote]
In the Eastern tradition, everyone is born innocent, but mortal.

[Apotheoun]

East and West have a different understanding of the nature of the ancestral sin. Click the link below to read an excerpt from Fr. Meyendorff's book entitled, [u]Byzantine Theology[/u]:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=67075&view=findpost&p=1256020"]Byzantine Theology[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

so wait, if gregory said it was his opinion, what about Pius? I dont' see him saying it's his opinion. I do see those sites Reza links to says he was not speaking infallibly, but they simply state that without saying why.
If it looks like a definitive infallible statment, smells like one etc, isn't it infallible? Definitive and infallible are pretty much coextensive. You dn't have to say "i hereby define" or "this is in fallible" for somehting ot be infallible. So what gives?

The final argument is that it was written by him before his office and not to the CHurch, right? If this is the final argument, how does Reza respond?
If I'm going down as Catholic, I'm taking Reza with me. ha

Edited May 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1276725' date='May 18 2007, 01:55 PM']so wait, if gregory said it was his opinion, what about Pius? I dont' see him saying it's his opinion. I do see those sites Reza links to says he was not speaking infallibly, but they simply state that without saying why.
If it looks like a definitive infallible statment, smells like one etc, isn't it infallible? Definitive and infallible are pretty much coextensive. You dn't have to say "i hereby define" or "this is in fallible" for somehting ot be infallible. So what gives?

The final argument is that it was written by him before his office and not to the CHurch, right? If this is the final argument, how does Reza respond?
If I'm going down as Catholic, I'm taking Reza with me. ha[/quote]

Well, as the third link Reza gave said:
[quote]The 1905 Catechism of St Pius X teaches that children who die without being baptized are destined to limbo. However, the Catechism, which Pius X wrote before his elevation to the papacy, was never directed to the universal Church. It is not an authoritative papal definition.[/quote]

If he wrote it before he was even elevated to the Papacy, how could he have intended it to be infallible if he had no ability to do so at the time?

As Likos also said: "- The Pope must speak as shepherd and teacher of [b]all[/b] the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian."

This would mean it would have to be directed universally, as the quote says it was not intended to do so. I've looked at the foreword and introduction to the catechism and it seems that it wasn't intended to do so. Hard for me to understand it all though.

Even then, I've been searching this catechism and cannot find the statement so far. I do see the comment about different forms of Baptism (water, blood, desire).

Edited May 18, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey Apotheon, congrats on the M.A. man, thats fantastic! I have two things that might be of interest for you. The first is that there will be a conference at Fordham University from June 14th - 16th, the topic of which is "Orthodox Readings of Augustine." The speakers will include Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant theologians and historians, and they will be discussing "the possibilities in Augustine's thought to unite rather than divide Eastern and Western Christians." It looks quite interesting, as Augustine tends to be the whipping boy for the East (not without good reason). Anyways, thought you might be interested.

Also, I just received honors from both the Religion and Philosophy departments at my school for my thesis on Illumination in the thought of Sts. Augustine and Maximus the Confessor. In this area, at least, it would be incorrect to see the teaching of the two Saints as being in opposition to one another, and so I have to wonder whether or not the same might be true in other areas of their thought as well.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1276374' date='May 18 2007, 02:23 AM']One of my favorites:
While other Popes, including the current Pope have said otherwise.[/quote]


Rez,

I've looked at two copies online of the Pius X catechism and neither have the alleded statement. Another article claims that this statement is in the Old Roman Catholic Catechism. Of course none seem to give specific details of where they got the quote. I think someone above said that it was before he was Pope that he wrote it. Well he wasn't Pius X then was he.

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pindex.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pindex.htm[/url]


See if you can find it in there. Otherwise it is just another trumpted up charge that has no root of fact.

[thessalonian]

Dariy,

I finally applaud you for a thread. This is good.

You and I have not communcated well on this board. Evidently we are very different people. But be assured you have been in my prayers and will be in the future. God bless you in your journey. You are apparently more open then I have taken you for and for that I apologize.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]One of my favorites:

QUOTE
Pius X also confirmed the existence of Limbo in Roman Catholic theology in his 1905 Catechism, saying that the unbaptized "do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer... they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory."


While other Popes, including the current Pope have said otherwise.[/quote]That quote is not in the Catechism. This one, however, is.

[quote][b]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:[/b]
11 Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?
A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.

12 Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.
[i][u]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X[/u] (Gladysvale, Vic.: Instauratio Press, 1993), p. 70[/i][/quote]

[quote]"The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex-cathedra -- that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves and not in virtue of the consent of the Church." (Denzinger 3074)[/quote]The definition of Papal Infallibility is actually to be found at D 1839.

[quote]The 1905 Catechism of St Pius X teaches that children who die without being baptized are destined to limbo. However, the Catechism, which Pius X wrote before his elevation to the papacy, was never directed to the universal Church. It is not an authoritative papal definition.[/quote]

That is incorrect. He actually wrote the Catechism, according to its introduction, after he became Pope:

[quote][b]Introduction to a Compendium of Catechetical Instruction:[/b]
During the sitting of the first Catechetical Congress in 1880, the then Bishop of Mantua (later St. Pius X) proposed that the Holy Father be petitioned to arrange for the compilation of a simple, plain, brief, and popular Catechism for uniform use all over the world. Shortly after his elevation to the Chair of Peter, Pius X at once set about realising, within certain limits, his own proposal of 1880, by prescribing a uniform Catechism — the Compendium of Christian Doctrine — for use in the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, at the same time indicating that it was his earnest desire to have the same manual adopted all over Italy. The text selected was, with slight modifications, that which had been adopted for some years by the united hierarchy of Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Emilia, and Tuscany.
[i][u]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X[/u] (Gladysvale, Vic.: Instauratio Press, 1993), p. xii[/i][/quote]

If someone wants to have a real discussion about the alleged contradictions of popes, instead of looking at a Catechism (though a very good one, it is still not as authoritative as an authoritative document) see D 693

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1277214' date='May 19 2007, 01:23 AM']If someone wants to have a real discussion about the alleged contradictions of popes, instead of looking at a Catechism (though a very good one, it is still not as authoritative as an authoritative document) see D 693[/quote]Even this refers back to an early quote from the Council of Lyons (Den. 464).

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1277245' date='May 18 2007, 11:36 PM']Even this refers back to an early quote from the Council of Lyons (Den. 464).[/quote]

That's becuase D 693 (Florence) quotes D 464 (Lyons) in the phrase, "The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments." which gives even more proof that Limbus Puerorum seems to be a defined dogma.

Edited May 19, 2007 by StThomasMore

[thessalonian]

Where'd reza go? This was his smoking gun evidence that infallibility of the Pope was false and he doesn't even defend it.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1280501' date='May 24 2007, 10:48 AM']Where'd reza go? This was his smoking gun evidence that infallibility of the Pope was false and he doesn't even defend it.[/quote]

I'm here, I just have nothing to add to the conversation at the moment. If I thought about it long enough, I'm sure that I could "stir up" the conversation more but I'm kinda behind at work, so I have less time lately but hopefully soon.

Edited May 24, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[thessalonian]

You were supposed to research the quote that you posted for us. Evidently you haven't. Well I have and so have others. Care to recant your claim? Or will you do the non-catholic shuffle to the next issue?

Edited May 25, 2007 by thessalonian

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1280878' date='May 24 2007, 07:12 PM']You were supposed to research the quote that you posted for us. Evidently you haven't. Well I have and so have others. Care to recant your claim? Or will you do the non-catholic shuffle to the next issue? [/quote]

I did research it and found that a significant amount of people quoted the same quote, so I highly doubt that it was "inaccurate". If you'd like to say that it's "inaccurate", then prove me wrong. I provided numerous sources above that gave the same exact quote. I highly doubt they'd all, with the same quote, be misleading. If you feel that the Roman Pope didn't say that, prove me wrong. As I have been reading this forum from time to time and will find your reply here if you have one.

I find it very intersting that you expect me to reply to everyone of your posts, or you declare that you were right, when there are numerous posts in which you didn't reply to my posts, in which I believe you were significantly flawed in your claims, such as those posted under the topic of "binding and loosing" etc. It doesn't mean that I jump to a conclusion that you were universally wrong, among other claims, so just take a chill pill.

Reza