Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522079' date='May 8 2008, 02:02 AM']they were a tight-knit culture who understood covenants as being not individualistic deals with God, but collective deals of an entire community with God.[/quote]

Interesting you bring up the concept of covenants. I learned about that whole concept initially from Dr. Hahn. Definitely still agree with him in principle on it. I think its a very important part of Catholic teaching and Catholic history to understand.

Edited May 8, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522087' date='May 8 2008, 02:30 AM']I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page. [/quote]

?

[Altari]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522089' date='May 8 2008, 03:35 AM']and all protestants being on the same page? haha... well, that's an interesting fable :[/quote]
What's a Protestant going to quote and reference? Just the Bible, that's all. No catechisms, no councils.... That's what I mean by "on the same page".

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522087' date='May 8 2008, 04:30 AM']Ahhh the semantics, and various unknowns of Catholicism, are making my head hurt. It's been fun, but I'm out. I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page. [/quote]

How is it any different than debating the TULIP among Calvinists or paedobaptism among Baptists?

Ultimately, we're all turning to some form of authority in these debates. The "problem" with Scripture is you can't refer to it without using another authority figure (even if it's yourself) to interpret it.

[CatherineM]

I would like to point out that when Adam made his covenant with God about the whole tree thing, Eve hadn't been created yet. I'm not saying that she wasn't aware of the covenant, or the consequences, I'm just saying that she wasn't an original signatory.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522179' date='May 8 2008, 10:50 AM']What's a Protestant going to quote and reference? Just the Bible, that's all. No catechisms, no councils.... That's what I mean by "on the same page".[/quote]
ahh... well, I thought that once it became a debate with you I pretty much stuck a lot to scriptural references if I was referencing anything. are we not allowed to also reason things out like I was doing?

there is no reason to avoid sources that supplement the scriptures... like bible commentaries and the teachings of those who hold the same office as those who decided which books should be in the Bible without whom we'd have way more than 4 gospels ... ie the Catholic Bishops

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']If one does not have a sinful nature, one cannot freely choose to sin. Eve would have been unable to take an action that she knew was contradictory to God's will if she did not have a sinful nature.[/quote]

Before the rebellion our first parents aka Adam and Eve lived in Terrestrial Paradise, Eden, or the "Garden of God." It was effectually heaven on earth. Nothing with a sinful nature can enter heaven. Only after our first parents sinned against God there was death and sin in the world. Before that there was no death or sin in the world, their rebellion introduced sin in the world, thus no "sinful" nature before that rebellion. Before the fall our first parents were perfect with glorified bodies, bodies which if we remain in Christ until the end we will again receive. A glorified body can not have a sinful nature. God gave our first parents the free will to choose to obey or disobey, or they would have been automatons of God. They would have only loved and obeyed Him because He forced them to do so, like a clock or like any automaton, with no thought, choice, or free will.

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']You're confusing actions with intentions. The act of taking the fruit was not the sin. It was the conscious and willful disregard for a direct command from God that was her sin.[/quote]

I have not confused this, I did say they "choose" to rebel against God, it was not their action after that choice, but the conscious decision to rebel against God's will which was the sin.

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']Sin is a mental state of repudiation of God's commands. The action is simply an outward sign that we have disregarded his commands. It is the difference between thinking, "I shouldn't do that, it is wrong"; and thinking, "I want to do that, and no one will know." Both involve contemplating an action, but only one involves a mental acceptance of sinful behavior.[/quote]

I agree and understand this completely Matthew 5:28

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart."

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']I'm also wondering if you're asserting that the Genesis account is historically accurate.[/quote]

I believe there was one man created by God, who then took from that man and made one woman. And this couple are our first parents and lived in Terrestrial Paradise until they chose to rebel against God and where thrown out.

Edited May 8, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

Limbo is unnecessary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1521998' date='May 7 2008, 11:17 PM']my point is that the current acceptable theory proposes that baptism IS applied to such babies and as such they qualify as those who can enter baptism because they are baptized out of original sin.

the "pope is God" stuff is garbage that I have still not seen a substantiated source cited from I'll look into its context if you can provide me a substantiated source...[/quote]

oh, i see what you were saying. i thought you were saying that you don't care what it said, the current theory says you can just look over what it said... like... sacraments are absolutely necessary is the teaching, but now it says actually they are neceessary but in a necessary and proper sense only, how that'd seem to be a contradiction perhaps.

but you were only saying, it doesn't say babies will be those who suffer from original sin.

i guess the only conclusion from that then,,, is that those who are not baptised but live beyond babydom and i guess early childhood, are the ones who can die in original sin, if you are to say taht it's possible that one could beleive not in limbo.
it's possible i concede.
that the catechism says this though... should illustrate to those who say the catechim has never been proven flase that maybe it has. i do suppose tho that it doesn't say now that limbo is a hoax, and people who bleive in limbo are justified in saying what that but.

all i got is speculation then, nothing concrete.

and extra nulla. but, beyond that issue though, i would like to see more contradictios etc which i concede i don't have a lot.

"possible" "apparent" contradiction if that makes soem feel better.

Edited May 10, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

something in a Catechism can only be infallible by virtue of its sources. it's magisterial and to be respected as authoritative and good for teaching the faith, but it can only be infallible if it sources a constant infallible teaching.

anyone who enters heaven has had the effects of baptism applied to them somehow, ie been 'baptized'

on a point raised by golden: to me, just because the gates of heaven are open does not mean necessarily that the abode of the dead has entirely descended into an eternal state and it is possible in my estimation that the edge of the abode of the dead might still be above the hell of the eternally damned the way it was prior to Christ's coming.

on Apotheoun's point: yes, in both Latin and Eastern theology it is unnecessary as there are other possible theological theories. However, in both Latin and Eastern theology, it is possible. Though it is a minority opinion in the history of Eastern theology, the fact that St. Gregory of Nyssa held to it shows that it is possible within the context of Eastern theology. And though it is a majority opinion in the history of western theology, the Vatican has recently made it very clear that it is possible to reject it within the context of latin theology.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1524033' date='May 10 2008, 11:47 AM']on a point raised by golden: to me, just because the gates of heaven are open does not mean necessarily that the abode of the dead has entirely descended into an eternal state and it is possible in my estimation that the edge of the abode of the dead might still be above the hell of the eternally damned the way it was prior to Christ's coming.[/quote]

oh yeah I'm not saying its not possible. I just don't really see it. Out of curiosity (and not that you have to have any in the case of speculation but just wondering) do you have any specific authorities that you have in mind when coming up with these ideas? Because I thought it was a pretty commonly accepted belief that there was no earning your salvation after you have died. Maybe I'm mistaken on that, but that's what I had assumed. Because even the speculative possibilities allowed for in the Catechism Explained text that I posted were all examples of extra-sacramental baptism achieved at or before death. I'm not aware of an authority that allows for an achieving of baptism (ordinary or otherwise) after death. peace

Edited May 10, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Aloysius]

I have read one medieval theologian who held this... he's pretty obscure though... other than that I'm not sure. I think (and don't quote me on this) that there might be something from the early Church that leaves open this possibility too. since it's a pet theory of mine, I've been meaning to collect some sources relating to it anyway so I might as well look them up for this thread when I get the chance.

[goldenchild17]

cool yeah let me know what you find, because I'd be interested.

[Apotheoun]

From an Eastern Christian perspective the "abode of the dead" (i.e., Hades or Sheol) is death itself, and Christ destroyed death by death, and brought everlasting life to all mankind.

[mortify]

Link: [u]
[url="http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2006/05/disputed-question-on-limbo-positive.html#links"][b]Disputed questions on Limbo[/b][/url][/u]
(please note, when you use the link it will send you to the bottom of the article so please scroll up)

Excerpt from article (emphasis mine):
[color="#0000FF"]" Disputed Question on Limbo--Positive Exposition.

1) IT IS ASKED: [b]Whether we can hope for the salvation of those people (especially infants) who die without baptism?[/b]

2) THESIS: [b]No, because.....[/b]"[/color]

Edited May 11, 2008 by mortify