Time To Get This Salvation Thing Straight

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 27 2004, 11:36 AM']Jason, no offence but your debating technique leaves a lot to be desired.  As Aquinas said, appeal to authority is the weakest argument (sorry...Thomistic humor).  We must prove our points using principles upon which we already agree.  If someone doen't believe the Pope is infalible (as Bruce does not) then appealing to the Pope will not convince him.  Just a thought.[/quote]
Sorry popestpiusx,

If you don't like my posts quite reading them. This is the third time you have made a comment about the way I post.

I give witness to the Truth. I use the Bible, Tradition, the writings of the Saints, whatever the Catholic Church approves of!

You don't like it, don't read it. If you want Truth I'll give it to you, if you want empty arguments I will not partake of them.

I have not said anything to you. If you got a problem with me than message me and tell me. I'm tired of the comments on the board about my posts!

God Bless
Jason

Edited March 29, 2004 by Jason

[Laudate_Dominum]

Just so you know, I happen to like your posts Jason. You can't please everyone I guess.

[CatholicCrusader]

Jason,
He wasn't trying to be mean or rude; he was merely stating that an appeal to the Chuch's Auhority won't convince a non-Catholic just as the Bible won't convince a Mohammadist or an athiest. God bless.

[popestpiusx]

Thank you crusader for your accurate clarification of my point. But Jason may have a point. Perhaps I have not been clear in my criticism. Jason, my point is not to insult you, but rather to question the effectiveness of your argumentation. It is not sufficient for convincing anyone. You simply state that the Pope has made it clear that limbo does not exist and then act as though anyone who belies differently is a laughable idiot. Not once have you addressed the countless quotations from popes, saints, theologians, and councils that contradict you. If the belief in limbo is so obviously opposed to Catholic teaching, as you suggest (and according to your interpretation of what the Church "Teaches") then why belief in it (or something like it) almost unanimous for almost 2000 years? My entire purpose is to get you to acknowledge that it is still a legitimate belief and is one that has never been revoked by Rome. There are still many very highly respected theologians (I have named some) who defend the traditional belief in limbo. LD provides reasons why (for him) the traditional belief is faulty (reasons I would like to discus more, especially the nature/ grace argument that we have not discussed). Jason, can you provide an intellectual defense of your belief? If not, then that is ok. But don't claim that what you have said closes the book on the issue.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 29 2004, 10:58 AM']Thank you crusader for your accurate clarification of my point.  But Jason may have a point.  Perhaps I have not been clear in my criticism.  Jason, my point is not to insult you, but rather to question the effectiveness of your argumentation.  It is not sufficient for convincing anyone.  You simply state that the Pope has made it clear that limbo does not exist and then act as though anyone who belies differently is a laughable idiot.  Not once have you addressed the countless quotations from popes, saints, theologians, and councils that contradict you.  If the belief in limbo is so obviously opposed to Catholic teaching, as you suggest (and according to your interpretation of what the Church "Teaches") then why belief in it (or something like it) almost unanimous for almost 2000 years?  My entire purpose is to get you to acknowledge that it is still a legitimate belief and is one that has never been revoked by Rome.  There are still many very highly respected theologians (I have named some) who defend the traditional belief in limbo.  LD provides reasons why (for him) the traditional belief is faulty (reasons I would like to discus more, especially the nature/ grace argument that we have not discussed).  Jason, can you provide an intellectual defense of your belief?  If not, then that is ok.  But don't claim that what you have said closes the book on the issue.[/quote]
I understand your point. Like I said before that I loved John Hardon. His teaching was that limbo was before our Lord's Acension into Heaven. Limbo he taught was were souls were before Jesus came. I agree with that! I even went to try to do a futher study on the subject on the teachings of limbo. Every time I typed in that word it brought me to purgatory.

I'm not trying to deny that there WAS a limbo. I don't believe there is anymore. Cleary John Hardon taught this way as well. Plus if you do a search on the Last Things you only get Heaven, Hell, Purgatory.

PS Plus limbo is not in the CCC

Thats the Churchs teaching now. Our you getting me?

God Bless You
Jason

[popestpiusx]

This is from Fr. Hardon:

Q. A priest has told me that the Church no longer believes in limbo. I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that we can only trust in the mercy of God when an infant dies without Baptism. What is the position of the Church regarding infants who die without Baptism?
—T.S., Michigan

A. It is true that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not speak of limbo. Over the centuries, the Church has understood limbo to be the abode of souls who enjoy the happiness that would have been our destiny if human beings had not been elevated to the supernatural order. The limbo of infants would therefore be a state or place of perfect happiness, but without the beatific vision of God.
Some theologians of renown have thought that God might supply the wont of Baptism by some other means. St. Bernard, for example, suggested that infants who died without Baptism could reach heaven because of the faith of their parents. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not deny the possibility or the existence of limbo. It merely says we may trust that, in God’s mercy, innocent children, whether born or unborn, do reach heaven. To be noted, however, is that we may trust, but without being certain of their entering the beatific vision.

[popestpiusx]

This is from Fr. Hardon's Catholic Dictionary:

LIMBO. The abode of souls excluded from the full blessedness of the beatific vision, but not suffering any other punishment. They enjoy the happiness that would have been human destiny if humans had not been elevated to the supernatural order.

Catholic theology distinguishes two kinds of limbo. The limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum) was the place where the saints of the Old Testament remained until Christ's coming and redemption of the world. The limbo of infants (limbus infantium) is the permanent state of those who die in original sin but are innocent of any personal guilt.

Regarding the limbo of infants, it is an article of the Catholic faith that those who die without baptism, and for whom the want of baptism has not been supplied in some other way, cannot enter heaven. This is the teaching of the ecumenical councils of Florence and Trent.

The Church has never defined the existence of limbo, although she has more than once supported the fact by her authority. Those who either deny that heaven is a supernatural destiny to which no creature has a natural claim, or who deny that original sin deprives a person of a right to heaven logically also deny the very possibility of limbo. On their premises there is no need of such a place. Among others who denied the existence of limbo were the Jansenists, whose theory of selective predestination excluded the need for any mediatorial source of grace, including baptism. They were condemned by Pope Pius VI as teaching something "false, rash and injurious to Catholic education," because they claimed that it was a Pelagian fable to hold that there is a place "which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of children," for the souls of those who depart this life with the sole guilt of original sin (Denzinger 2626). Pope Pius XII declared that "an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant this way is not open" (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84). At stake is the revealed doctrine that heaven is a sheer gift of divine goodness and that baptism of water or desire is necessary to enter heaven. (Etym. Latin limbo, ablative form of limbus, border.)

[popestpiusx]

From Father Hardon's work "The Channels of Grace"

This historic declaration is introduced by the words, “According to the usual providence of God.” Consequently, we leave to God’s mercy the eternal destiny of those who die without baptism before reaching the age of discretion. But historically the Church has never given her official approval to any theory that substitutes for infants some other way of attaining the beatific vision other than baptism of water. Moreover, the Church has condemned as “false”, the Jansenist denial of a limbo of children. This would be a place of perfect, natural happiness but without the face-to-face vision of God (Pope Pius VI, in The Author of Faith, August 28, 1794).

[Livin_the_MASS]

I asked you this in the thread of The Death Penalty.

Do you believe that Catholic Doctrine Blossoms as the ages pass?

Agree

Disagree?

[popestpiusx]

Even what the Catechism says, "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them" cannot be taken as a guarantee that unbaptised children go to heaven. Read it carefully: "THE CHURCH CAN ONLY ENTRUST THEM TO THE MERCY OF GOD". The mercy of God may allow us hope that God saves them, but not assurance as he has revealed no other way to be saved other than by baptism. The Catechism goes on to say "All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." Why would this urgency exist if God's mercy assures them of salvation?

[popestpiusx]

It depends what you mean by "blossom". Legitimately develops? Yes. Essentially changes? No.

[popestpiusx]

Can you refute anything I have posted?

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/29 - Fifth Monday of Lent

Of course the Catholic Faith blossoms over the years; when a puppy grows into a dog, he doesn't become or change into something else, he becomes more a dog. (that's from Chesterton's [i]The Everlasting Man[/i])

[Livin_the_MASS]

You can go either way with your statement. It also doesn't say they go to a place of happiness.

Plus you ignored my question (saying with charity)!

Does Catholic Doctrine not blossom as the ages pass?

Look how many encylicles the Pope has written on the Eucharist, Mary, The human body stuff that we didn't know before!

Yes other Popes wrote on the Eucharist and were in agreement with JPII on the subject!

But they were not as detailed as Pope John II encylicles.

Doctrine grows, comes to fullfilment as time goes on.

Agree or Disagree?

[popestpiusx]

Here is another interesting point:

A survey of literature reveals that various theologians continue to hold it as a certain theological conclusion and as the most reasonable explanation about the fate of unbaptized children that can be offered in the context of the Church's teaching on original sin. That Limbo does not appear in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is not a compelling argument against the existence of Limbo. Limbo did not appear in the famous Roman Catechism, commonly called The Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is significant that Bishop Alessandro Maggiolini, who was on the original commission editing the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), was reported to have refused to rule out the existence of Limbo. The most recent official treatment of the issue of unbaptized infants, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, leaves the question unresolved. On the one hand, CCC n. 1261 and n. 1283 allow the faithful to hope that in the mercy of God such infants may be admitted to the Beatific Vision, while n. 1257 recalls that we do not know that they are so saved, stating that "the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude." CCC n. 1261 adds: "All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

It should be particularly noted that n. 99 in the 1995 encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" of Pope John Paul II has become widely quoted in pro-life literature to afford a measure of consolation to mothers who have aborted their children but need not fear that their unborn have been deprived of the supernatural happiness of Heaven. In the English translation of Evangelium Vitae that continues to circulate, one reads that the Pope gives "a special word to women who have had an abortion," adding:

"Certainly, what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourself over with humility and trust in repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you His peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord."

Unfortunately, for those eager to rely on the above words of the Pope as further proof that unbaptized children are assured of Heaven in the Church's present teaching, the above last sentence is absent from the official Latin text of the encyclical. In place of the last sentence quoted above is read: "You can entrust your infant to the same Father and to His mercy" ("Infantem autem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere") – with footnotes referring to CCC nn. 1257, 1261, 1287, and to the funeral liturgy for unbaptized children).