Livin_the_MASS Posted March 29, 2004 Author Share Posted March 29, 2004 [quote name='Pio Nono' date='Mar 29 2004, 04:34 PM'] 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]) [/quote] Thats what I'm trying to say. God Bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 Jason I answered your question. I said" It depends what you mean by "blossom". Legitimately develops? Yes. Essentially changes? No." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 I acknowledged that there is a legitimate development of doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 But development cannot entail essential change. In other words, there must be some continuity for a thing to be considered a development. Otherwise, it is called a novelty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 29, 2004 Author Share Posted March 29, 2004 Ok I agree it doesn't change but it does blossom. The Church is growing. Things are taught that weren't back then. Does it change? Of couse not! The Holy Spirit sheds Light on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 The Church teaching (in some capacity) that the unbaptised cannot experience the beatific vision for just under 2000 years cannot developinto the opposite of that. If the Church now teaches that the unbaptised may experience the beatific vision (which She does not teach) then that is called a novel teaching. It bears no resemblence to prior teaching, nor any continuity with it. This is not development. However, if you read what I posted above you will see that the Church never renounced belief in limbo. In fact, many believe it and teach it and are perfectly good Catholics. One of which, as I pointed out above, is Fr. John Hardon. Another is Dr. William Marshner, one of the founding faculty of Christendom College, and a phenominal theologian and philosopher. Lastly, I provided proof that two of the favorite quotes used against limbo cannot in fact be used that way. One is simply misunderstod and the other is a mistranslation. Do you understand whatI am trying to say here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 29, 2004 Author Share Posted March 29, 2004 (edited) I understand your point. either way we go here, either of us are not wrong. I know and agree that documents have been written on this and that you as a Catholic can agree and teach this. But I also can say I don't agree because now the Church teachs and the Pope has written a Chuch document on Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory as being a state of being, The Last Things. So I agree that limbo was BEFORE Christ. It's nothing against you. I just have more hope in God than that. He has done to much to leave thing at a natural happiness. Do you disagree with this statement? God Bless Jason Edited March 29, 2004 by Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 [quote]either way we go here, either of us are not wrong.[/quote] Someone is always right and someone is always wrong. Either there is a Limbo, and you're wrong or there is not a Limbo and the numerous Saints as well as whoever else defends it (myself, popestpiusx, and others on this forum) are wrong. It's not just some relative thing where everyone is correct. That sounds a lot like pantheism/modernism/protestantism. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 29 2004, 06:11 PM'] I understand your point. either way we go here, either of us are not wrong. I know and agree that documents have been written on this and that you as a Catholic can agree and teach this. But I also can say I don't agree because now the Church teachs and the Pope has written a Chuch document on Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory as being a state of being, The Last Things. So I agree that limbo was BEFORE Christ. It's nothing against you. I just have more hope in God than that. He has done to much to leave thing at a natural happiness. Do you disagree with this statement? God Bless Jason [/quote] I take no offence in you disagreeing with me. I simply want you to defend your position intellectually, providing evidence instead of bare assertions. I have provided evidence that the Church does not teach what you think she does, at least to the exclusion of limbo as a possibility. To choose not to believe in limbo requires you to formulate some way in which the unbaptised can receive sanctifying grace. Divine revelation only provides one way: baptism (in one of its forms). And the limbo before Christ has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now