Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306364131' post='2245975']
the only problem for both Al and LD is that they both seem to be saying, in dismissing the idea that all infants go to hell, or that limbo is a higher version of hell etc.. 'what the popes really meant, was' or at least, 'the rule is X... but God is not limited to his rules'
they both are defying the clear intention of the popes. 'infants go to hell' etc.
Al specifrically even responded to the pope saying they go to hell. see below.
[/quote]
Not really. The Thomistic theory of limbo contradicts your reading of those texts and yet it was defended by that condemnation of Pistoia that has been inappropriately quoted earlier in this thread. The Jansenist-leaning Gallican bishops sought to condemn the Thomistic view as Pelagian; too bad they were pwned. Pope Pius IX (I believe it was) explicitly contradicts the view that those who die in original sin alone merit damnation and punishment. If Lyon is really a problem then it isn't just a problem for Al and I, but for Roman Catholicism in general. Perhaps your translation is misleading. Perhaps you're taking the statement out of the necessarily holistic context of Catholic theology. Maybe both. Assuming that some version of limbo theory (maybe the Augustinian view) is a definitive teaching of the Church - a view that you seem to be espousing but that goes against the consensus of theologians - then perhaps this is a contradiction in Catholic teaching. Is that what you're getting at?

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes, that is what i've been getting at
i dont see folks who teach what appears to be 'strict' and then said 'lenient' things that would show that one shouldn't read too much into the 'strict' things, dont mis interpret them. that is, no one does this, except for modern popes. i coulda swore Cyprian did the same. but even if he or earlier important figures did... it doesn't necessarily mean the middle aged popes weren't being strict completely, though the burden of proof is higher to say they aren't strict when tradition always does that sort of apparent, though not really, double speak.

Edited May 30, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306784661' post='2247744']
yes, that is what i've been getting at
i dont see folks who teach what appears to be 'strict' and then said 'lenient' things that would show that one shouldn't read too much into the 'strict' things, dont mis interpret them. that is, no one does this, except for modern popes. i coulda swore Cyprian did the same. but even if he or earlier important figures did... it doesn't necessarily mean the middle aged popes weren't being strict completely, though the burden of proof is higher to say they aren't strict when tradition always does that sort of apparent, though not really, double speak.
[/quote]
I'll admit that I've not seen an explanation of Lyon that is very satisfying. Fr. Most suggests that the Latin words [i]infernum[/i] and [i]poena[/i] need not refer to hell and punitive suffering, but the context seems to suggest otherwise, no? I have to suspend judgment though as I've hardly given the matter reasonable study and thought. My hunch is that the big picture of Catholic theology and the specific historical context of those strong decrees are sufficient to "explain away" the obvious Feeneyite interpretation. Still, this understanding might have implications as it would seem to make conciliar decrees a bit squishy. I should reread that recent theological commission report on limbo. Have you read it? If so, what did you think?


edit: typo

Edited May 30, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[dairygirl4u2c]

if anyone can find a 'lenient' sounding quote from cyprian, that would be pretty significant, for the reasons i mentioned in my last post. i cant find any. i may have been mistaken thinking they may have existed

as for the limbo and theological commission, i haven't read it as it's long,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html#_ftnref48

but as far as the parts that refer to below...

"Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)"

i am skeptical of how this stuff is treated.

"In the developments of medieval doctrine, the loss of the Beatific Vision (poena damni) was understood to be the proper punishment for original sin, whereas the “torments of perpetual hell” constituted the punishment for mortal sins actually committed.[47] In the Middle Ages, the ecclesiastical magisterium affirmed more than once that those “who die in mortal sin” and those who die “with original sin only” receive “different punishments”.[48]

23. Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptised children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus)."

they are making reference to lyons quotes above etc, and ignoring that it says they go to hell. they try to essentially go on to say 'all they were really saying was that babies are treated differently... that can mean many things, hence, we doubt babies go to hell'

Edited May 31, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

its treatment of florence quotes are decent, argued like Al and Laud would argue, but id say argue it's doing a loop de loop.

baptism is necessary.... and by necessary, what they meant was the normal means of salvation.

"The Catholic Church's belief that Baptism is necessary for salvation was powerfully expressed in the Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: “There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”.[57] This teaching implies a very vivid perception of the divine favour displayed in the sacramental economy instituted by Christ; the Church does not know of any other means which would certainly give little children access to eternal life. However, the Church has also traditionally recognized some substitutions for Baptism of water (which is the sacramental incorporation into the mystery of Christ dead and risen), namely, Baptism of blood (incorporation into Christ by witness of martyrdom for Christ) and Baptism of desire (incorporation into Christ by the desire or longing for sacramental Baptism). During the 20th century, some theologians, developing certain more ancient theological theses, proposed to recognize for little children either some kind of Baptism of blood (by taking into consideration the suffering and death of these infants), or some kind of Baptism of desire (by invoking an “unconscious desire” for Baptism in these infants oriented toward justification, or the desire of the Church).[58] "

[Laudate_Dominum]

Infants go straightaway to hell to be tortured for eternity? What a horrid and monstrous doctrine. What's worse, the church contradicting herself on this, or this doctrine being true? Just a rhetorical question. Anyway, imagine finding that little nugget in the catechism. Yikes!

[dairygirl4u2c]

i could give Al's argument a little more credit, 'it says if you die in original sin, you go to hell.... by extraordinary intervention by God, they don't die in original sin, so they dont go to hell, and thus there's no contradictions'.
it's plausible.
but then you get into all the 'baptism is the only way they got'. and other quotes, and totality of what's taught, and it seems pretty clear they intended to teach that infants go to hell.

even aquanis used the idea of 'baptism is the only way' in his reasonings, while addressing other 'outs' for noninfants, which seems to suggest tehre are no 'outs' for infants, given he's pretty much dismissing them.

Summa Theologica Question 68, Article 3 "I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (A[2])."

Edited May 31, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

on a side note, it's interesting to note the following stuff, that i found somewhat compelling to argue that grace is by definition an exception to a rule...
catechism says '1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." [b]God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.'[/b]

i know folks such as fiet ratio would say that *we* are bounded by the sacraments even while God might not be, as a way to say it's absotultely necessary they have water baptism. but, we see even teh catechism says opposite him.
he might argue that the catechism isn't infallible, but this and other evidences give weight to what the popes mean when they talk in ways that could be seen as 'lenient'.
fiet ratio and others might say that they are just reading quotes in light of history, but these evidences are all showing that they cannot be properly reconciling all the quotes in the way they are. if the CC taught rigid things at one point in time, then lenient things later... then ya can't read it all with each other in mind in a way that's conconcilable. instead there's contradiction afoot.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

It is not contradiction since catechisms can be (and are) changed, modified, and corrected. The teachings within the catechism(s) only carry as much doctrinal weight as they have outside of the catechism(s). The catechism does not (and cannot) impart doctrinal weight to a teaching that is not authoritatively taught outside of it.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306273777' post='2245490']
"We cannot say that Baptism is necessary, and then turn around and attempt to create several different exceptions."
I haven't created any new exceptions. Besides, baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not exceptions to the necessity of baptism, they're extraordinary means of obtaining the grace of the sacrament. I've only suggesting that the already existing doctrine of baptism of desire has applicability to the domain of infant baptism.


[/quote]
Hypothetically, a child dies without baptism. God knows what could have been. If that child had lived but never grown to desire baptism then all is lost. On the other hand if the child had lived to desire baptism then baptism of desire exists as an extraordinary means of baptism. If this is what you're saying then I like! People may also need to consider that there is a conflict between this belief in the necessity of baptism and the Church's statements concerning salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. In other words if a person can have the possibility of salvation outside the RC Church then there is the necessity of the baptism of desire as an extraordinary means of obtaining the necessary grace of the missing sacrament.

[mortify]

There's no salvation outside of the Church. True. But what is the Church? It's wrong to limit the Church to the visible unity of catholics under the Roman Pontiff. The Church is more precisely the mystical body of Christ. Now here is the crucial point. Just as one may be a visible member, but not a mystical member, so one may be a mystical member but not a visible member. It's being a member of the Mystical Body that counts.

[mortify]

...btw, interesting how my thought has developed on this issue over the years.

Basically, yes, God is not limited to the sacraments. An unbaptized infant can still make it to heaven by the mercy of God, but at the same time, limbo may exist for others!

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1312438461' post='2281388']
There's no salvation outside of the Church. True. But what is the Church? It's wrong to limit the Church to the visible unity of catholics under the Roman Pontiff. The Church is more precisely the mystical body of Christ. Now here is the crucial point. Just as one may be a visible member, but not a mystical member, so one may be a mystical member but not a visible member. It's being a member of the Mystical Body that counts.
[/quote]
In case I didn't make that clear. The catholic (universal) church includes all people who lives lives in concert with the teachings of Christ even if they are not aware of Christianity or belong to another religion. For example the Jews who were God's first chosen people. God made all humans with souls created for the purpose of eternal life. No one is excluded from the possibility of this due to race or creed.
[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1312438564' post='2281390']
...btw, interesting how my thought has developed on this issue over the years.

Basically, yes, God is not limited to the sacraments. An unbaptized infant can still make it to heaven by the mercy of God, but at the same time, limbo may exist for others!
[/quote]
I'm inclined to agree with L_D that there is no exception to the sacraments. But the sacraments are more importantly spiritual than physical and can therefore be satisfied by extraordinary means.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1312492840' post='2281582']
In case I didn't make that clear. The catholic (universal) church includes all people who lives lives in concert with the teachings of Christ even if they are not aware of Christianity or belong to another religion. For example the Jews who were God's first chosen people. God made all humans with souls created for the purpose of eternal life. No one is excluded from the possibility of this due to race or creed.[/quote]

This sounds like Rahner's anonymous Christian theory. Are you very familiar with this line of thought?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1312515287' post='2281738']

This sounds like Rahner's anonymous Christian theory. Are you very familiar with this line of thought?
[/quote]
Interesting thanks for that. I looked it up and came up with this, it pretty much sums up what I'm thinking.
[url="http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_012_RatzAnoyimousChrist.htm"][font="arial,helvetica"][b][color="#000080"]Fr. Joseph Ratzinger defends the false theory
of the 'anonymous Christian' by Karl Rahner[/color][/b][/font][/url]

But why this?? Any ideas?
[quote][font="arial,helvetica"][size="5"][font="arial,helvetica"][size="3"][color="#800000"][color="#800000"]Obviously, this conception is opposed to Catholic doctrine. [/color][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font][/quote]

[quote]
[b]CC 847[/b] This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[sup]337[/sup]
[/quote]