Livin_the_MASS Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 I did you ignoring it. Plan and simple! (saying with charity) God Bless, Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Development of doctrine does not imply the complete reversal or contradiction. In other words, a thing cannot develop into the opposite of itself. For this to be a development you would have to show some continuity. I'll say this again. Prior to this new teaching it was nearly unanimous that unbaptised souls do not experience the beatific vision. The new teaching completely reverses that. I am not saying it is wrong because of that. I am just saying that this is not a deveopment, properly speaking. Jason, I still await any argument in refutaion of something I have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 27 2004, 12:57 PM'] popestpiusx, So your saying Jesus Christ the only Son of God Came Down from Heaven suffered for our sins died for us, to give us a place of natural happiness? Sorry your wrong! The whole reason for His Passion and Acension was to bring us to Him for all Eternity. (The Beatific Vision) I'm not saying limbo was not a place of being before Our Lord's Acension. With babies I will say again "with God all things are possiable" Your Baptism issue is like this, If one knows that he must be baptized and has been given the good news of the Gospel and rejects it, than thats different. But for a baby who has no say if it lives or dies, who are you to say where they go? God is the Judge, He desires the Salvation of souls, and He never gives up on us. Again The Church TEACHES that after particular judgement the soul goes to one of the three choices HEAVEN, PURATORY, OR HELL. God Bless, Jason [/quote] It is a nuanced issue. If you seek to affirm an unconditional salvation for unbaptised infants you will likely approach the errors of the Pelagians, if you go in the opposite direction too far you approach the errors of the Jansenists. On the other hand we can "hope" for the salvation of these infants and we have reason to do so. We simply do not have the revealed data upon which to ground a strict teaching in this regard. Limbo is a convenient middle ground which conforms to the revealed data (although I'd say its inadequate and somewhat artificial). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 27 2004, 01:06 PM'] Development of doctrine does not imply the complete reversal or contradiction. In other words, a thing cannot develop into the opposite of itself. For this to be a development you would have to show some continuity. I'll say this again. Prior to this new teaching it was nearly unanimous that unbaptised souls do not experience the beatific vision. The new teaching completely reverses that. I am not saying it is wrong because of that. I am just saying that this is not a deveopment, properly speaking. Jason, I still await any argument in refutaion of something I have said. [/quote] wow pius.. talk about deja vu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Are you saying we agreed on something??? Surely not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 Let me put it like this then, The Sacraments apply to those who are alive! You accept them or reject them. IS GOD NOT LOVE? I tell you He is! I think our problem is, you guys are trying to go over every single letter written (not an approved document of The Church) and I'm speaking in the heart of faith. Baptism again are for those who are alive (the parents of the child) or the person himself or herself that know that they need to be baptized. I go off of faith on this matter, since God is love and the babies do not have no way of defending themselves, I believe God has mercy. God Bless, Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 27 2004, 01:12 PM'] Are you saying we agreed on something??? Surely not [/quote] Ha! Not yet. I just kept being reminded of our past conversation. Was kind of making me feel a time-warp sensation. There's an interesting speculation, I admit there is no definitive doctrine concerning this, but what do you think of time-warps? j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 [quote] So if it is not in the catachism, it is not an official teaching? Hogwash. [/quote] This was my belief that the CCC is the teachings of the Church, if its not in their then its not a doctrine. Course I could be wrong but this was my thought about it. I view the Limbo argument like I do Apparitions, when the Church officially comes out and says an Apparition did indeed happen, its not a doctrine, its just 'worthy' of belief. The Church never made Limbo a Doctrine, meaning it HAD to be believed in order to be Catholic, its just worthy to be believed. And im quiet sure that if it IS or WAS a doctrine, it would be in the CCC. Its a typical prot attitude to think that just because a Pope or Bishop writes about a subject they automatically consider it 'Doctrine' or a Teaching, when it could be a mere opinion. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Jason, Here is a little nutshell of the issue as I see it. And again, I think we can say these babes are "with Jesus". They are totally at His Mercy and are in His bosom. They cannot suffer eternal punishment because original sin alone does not merit this. Yet it is difficult or impossible to systematically ground the possibility of beatific vision since they have original sin and lack the "normal" means of acquiring sanctifying grace. And I believe the concept of natural happiness crumbles under scrutiny. So what is left? Jesus, the All-Authoritative Conqueror of sin and death who has loved the little children and the innocents with a singular love. This IS a definitive teaching of the Church: "God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (CCC n. 1257) I just thought of this so it might be way off, but I might as well throw it out there. Part of the problem is that babies do not have the free will to accept or reject salvation so how can they go to heaven? St. Therese writes that when her baby brother died her parents told her that he was now a little cherub in heaven. Maybe God makes babies into little cherubs. This may sound cheesey, but seriously, angels make a definitive act of the will because their wills exist in a different mode. Well babies have souls which are fully human, but because their bodies are not fully developed the full potentialities of their soul are not actualized. Well, when they are dead since they truly do have human souls which by nature possess free-will, maybe they can make a choice at death? Kind of like the angels. A pure choice, not bound up with the development of the body and the dynamics of the world. Just a silly idea, I'm sure its full of holes. I'll think about it some more. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 [quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Mar 27 2004, 01:24 PM'] This was my belief that the CCC is the teachings of the Church, if its not in their then its not a doctrine. Course I could be wrong but this was my thought about it. I view the Limbo argument like I do Apparitions, when the Church officially comes out and says an Apparition did indeed happen, its not a doctrine, its just 'worthy' of belief. The Church never made Limbo a Doctrine, meaning it HAD to be believed in order to be Catholic, its just worthy to be believed. And im quiet sure that if it IS or WAS a doctrine, it would be in the CCC. Its a typical prot attitude to think that just because a Pope or Bishop writes about a subject they automatically consider it 'Doctrine' or a Teaching, when it could be a mere opinion. Big difference. [/quote] These issues were addressed more fully in the limbo thread, I would refer anyone with a deep interest in this subject to that thread. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 (edited) Laudate_Dominum, Read what you just posted though[quote] "God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (CCC n. 1257)[/quote] God is not bound to His Sacraments. He is God. He can have mercy! God Bless, Jason Edited March 27, 2004 by Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 27 2004, 01:32 PM'] Laudate_Dominum, Read what you just posted though God is not bound to His Sacraments. He is God. He can have mercy! God Bless, Jason [/quote] Yes, so we certainly have reason to hope, but this is still not adequate for grounding a positive statement regarding the unconditional salvation of infants. And the issue is also complicated by a number of authoritative statements that certainly do not favor this view. But I agree, given the totality of what I know about Catholic doctrine and everything I think (I'm not asserting this as a doctrinal statement but merely a personal opinion) that Jesus does save the babies and they will be with their mamas in heaven. Some would flip out over this statement but I wouldn't try to systematically defend it. Call it a strong hunch. Actually I would defend this view, but only on a theoretical level, not as if it is dogmatic. Edited March 27, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 (edited) It is in the CCC. So it is sound and true "God is not held by His Sacraments!!!" God Bless, Jason Edited March 27, 2004 by Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 27 2004, 01:38 PM'] It is in the CCC. So it is sound and true "God is not held by His Sacraments!!!" God Bless, Jason [/quote] Yep, that has been a constant teaching of the Catholic Church and is a definitive doctrine. Also Aquinas, the originator of the theory of limbo as we know it, was quite strong in teaching this fact. Funny it didn't work into his theory too much. Oh well.. He had a lot on his plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Here is a quote from something I posted on the limbo thread. This is my favorite version of the limbo theory. [quote]"The great Swiss Cardinal, Charles Journet (A.D. 1891-1975), one of the few men made a cardinal because of his theological expertise, explained the doctrine of limbo in terms of salvation. According to Journet, children in limbo share in salvation because of the resurrection of Christ, in which it is absolutely certain they will share. Thus along with the natural happiness which is theirs because of their innocence, they will have the gifts of immortality and a happy social life with the rest of the human race, in particular with their parents. The fact that they don't share in the beatific vision does not deprive them of the other real and necessary elements of human happiness, or the happy association with those who do possess the beatific vision. Cardinal Journet says they will know and love Christ as the cause of their resurrection. Their resurrection will be their share in the salvation won by Christ for the human race of which they are a part. This view has the happy characteristics of being based only on dogmatic certainties: the resurrection of the dead, the necessity of baptism for supernatural life, and of emphasizing that our salvation consists not only in the supernatural beatific vision, even though this is its essential aspect, but also in the miraculous restoration of natural life, the survival of our person because of Christ's triumph over death."[/quote] Although I actually don't hold this view, but I thought it might be compelling to some people. 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