uYes, I have read this docuмent, it has NO magisterial authority, even by novus ordo standards. It is the finding of a commitee, nothing more, composed of 30 or so "theologians."

Agreed. Docuмents like that from the NO Church are not worth bringing up as support for (defined or traditional) Catholic Teaching.

It behooves me to take some time to admonish the participants and readers of this thread (and the Forum in general) regarding a fundamental truth often ignored, and I am not at all implying or insinuating that this applies to the participants of this thread, and I apologize if I give that impression in any way.

In my personal experience, I have seen numerous persons give themselves over to the study and disputation of lofty questions regarding sacred doctrine, whilst neglecting to cultivate their own interior life. It often happens that certain souls neglect prayer for the sake of study, and this is often a dangerous delusion which can ultimately imperil the salvation of the individual. So many have been the heresies, errors and dissensions that have had their ultimate origin in such a diabolical disorientation.

It particularly behooves us to be temperate in intellectual endeavors, for the Angelic Doctor expounds upon studiousness as the moral virtue which has knowledge as its proper matter (Summa IIa IIæ, q. clxvi., art. 1), and “is a potential part of temperance, as a subordinate virtue annexed to a principle virtue” (“studiositas sit pars potentialis temperantiae, sicut virtus secundaria ei adiuncta ut principali virtuti”), for the moderation of the natural desire that all men have for knowledge pertains to the virtue of studiousness (“moderatio autem hujus appetitus pertinet ad virtutem studiositatis;” ibid., art. 2). St. Thomas goes on to teach that “on the part of the soul, [man] is inclined to desire knowledge of things; and so it behooves him to exercise a praiseworthy restraint of this desire, lest he seek knowledge immoderately” (“ex parte animae, inclinatur homo ad hoc quod cognitionem rerum desideret: et sic oportet ut homo laudabiliter huiusmodi appetitum refrenet, ne immoderate rerum cognition intendat;” ibid. ad iii. dub.).

However, what is temperance without humility? For it is never expedient to search into things that are above us if we fail to cultivate a pure and earnest heart wherewith to search into such sacred things, after the example of King David who prayed unto the Lord, singing, "Lord, my heart is not exalted: neither are mine eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters, nor in marvelous things above me," "Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum: neque elati sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi in magnis: neque in mirabilibus super me" (Ps. cxxx. 1).

Lend ear to the admonitions placed upon the lips of our dear Lord and found in the great treatise De Imitatione Christi: "Son, be not curious, and give not way to useless cares. What is  this or that to thee? Follow thou Me," ("Fili, noli esse curiosus, nec vacuas gerere sollicitudines. Quid hoc vel illud ad te? tu me sequere," Lib. III., cap. xxiv. n. 1), for, "I would gladly speak My word to thee, and reveal My secrets, if thou wouldst diligently observe My coming, and open to Me the door of thy heart. Be circuмspect, and watch in prayers, and humble thyself in all things," ("Libenter loquerer tibi verbum meum, et abscondita revelarem, si adventum meum diligenter observares, et ostium cordis mihi aperires. Esto providus, et vigila in orationibus, et humilia te in omnibus," ibid., n. 2). For, "I am He that in an instant elevateth the humble mind to comprehend more reasons of the eternal truth than if any one had studied ten years in the schools. I teach without noise of words, without confusion of opinions, without ambition of honor, without strife of arguments," ("Ego sum, qui humilem in puncto elevo mentem: ut plures æternæ veritatis capiat rationes, quam si quis decem annis studuisset in scholis. Ego doceo sine strepitu verborum, sine confusione opinionum, sine fastu honoris, sine pugnatione argumentorum," Lib. III., cap. xliii., n. 3) --- "For a certain person, by loving Me intimately, learned things divine and spoke wonders. He profiteth more by foresaking all things than by studying subtleties," ("Nam quidam amando me intime, didicit divina et loquebatur mirabilia. Plus profecit in relinquendo omnia, quam in studendo subtilia," ibid., n. 4). "Study the mortification of thy vices; for this will more avail thee than the knowledge of many difficult questions," ("Stude mortificationi vitiorum, quia hoc amplius tibi proderit, quam notitia multarum difficilium quæstionum," ibid., n. 1) --- "In everything attend to thyself, what thou art doing, and what thou art saying: and direct thy whole attention to this, that thou mayest please Me alone, and neither desire nor seek anything out of me," ("In omni re attende tibi, quid facias, et quid dicas: et omnem intentionem tuam ad hoc dirige, ut mihi soli placeas, et extra me nihil cupias vel quæras," Lib. III., cap. xxv., n. 3).

Those who are industrious and diligent to study upon lofty matters and yet neglect their interior lives are in exceeding great peril: "Woe to them that inquire after many curious things of men, and are little curious of the way to serve Me," ("Væ eis qui multa curiosa ab hominibus inquirunt, et de via mihi serviendi parum curat," Lib. III., cap. xliii., n. 2). "For he that would fully and with relish understand the words of Christ, must study to conform his whole life to Him," ("Qui autem vult plene et sapide Christ verba intelligere, oportet ut totam vitam suam illi studeat conformare," Lib. I., cap. i., n. 2). "What doth it profit thee to dispute deeply about the Trinity, if thou be wanting in humility, and so be displeasing to the Trinity?" ("Quid prodest tibi, alta de Trinitate disputare, si careas humilitate, unde displiceas Trinitati?" ibid., n. 3). "Oftentimes call to mind the proverb: The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing. Study, therefore, to wean thy heart from love of visible things, and to betake thee to the things unseen," ("Memento illius frequenter proverbii: quia non satiatur oculus viso, nec auris impletur auditu. Stude ergo cor tuum ad amore visibilium abstrahere, et ad invisibilia te transferre," ibid., n. 5). "Truly, a lowly rustic that serveth God is better than a proud philosopher who pondereth the courses of the stars, and neglecteth himself," ("Melior est profecto humilis rusticus, qui Deo servit, quam superbus Philosophus, qui se neglecto, cursum cœli considerat," Lib. I., cap ii., n. 1). The humble of heart have not this admonition to fear: "The more thou knowest, and the better, so much the heavier will thy judgment therefore be, unless thy life be also more holy," ("Quanto plus et melius scis, tanto gravius inde judicaberis, nisi sanctius vixeris," ibid., n. 3).

From the above-cited admonitions of this great treatise upon the Christian life, it is clear that prayer should be the primal concern of the student of sacred doctrine.

Now, as I have hitherto written elsewhere, the Holy Rosary is the most apt prayer for students of sacred doctrine, as this most wondrous Psalterium Jesu et Mariæ is above all the school of contemplation and a mirror of virtues to be imitated in the divine lives of Jesus and Mary. The Holy Rosary is in truth a school wherein the Mysteries of the Faith shine forth before the eyes of the soul with a supernal effulgence that dispels the darkness of sin and ignorance, and illumines the soul with a vivifying light that harmonizes prayer with study, and makes the interior and exterior life of the student correspond with these elements that enlighten and strengthen one another.

In my personal experience, at least, it has come to pass that a well-meditated and well-prayed Rosary has in some instances taught me more regarding certain truths than the Manuals and treatises of sacred theology, perhaps because in the course of meditating upon the Rosary Mysteries certain theological principles taken on a profundity and immensity that overwhelm and thrill the amplitude of the soul, so that in due time discursive reasoning at times gives way to the simple and prolonged gaze of the soul rapt in mute veneration and devout dread before the inexhaustible riches of the wisdom and goodness of God. If this continues, and the soul begins to be purified passively (having already been purged actively by the penance and self-abnegation characteristic of the purgative way) and becomes more detached from self and more docile to the Holy Ghost, then the soul enters the ethereal, transluminous realm of the mystical ways of prayer.

Such is the power of the Holy Rosary, and why it was so recommended by Our Lady at Fatima and elsewhere, and so richly indulged and promoted by the Supreme Pontiffs and lauded by Saints and spiritual authors. For the student of sacred doctrine the Holy Rosary is truly the path not only to sacred knowledge, but to holy contemplation, the plenitude of that divinely revealed faith which is the object of sacred theology.

To conclude: a student of sacred doctrine must be given over to prayer first and foremost, and must frequent the holy Sacraments and avail himself of the spiritual direction of a devout and learned Priest (either personally or by correspondence if a Priest is not accessible because of the times). Availing oneself of the divinely-ordained patronage and tutelage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sedes sapientiae (Litaniæ Lauretanæ Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, Rituale Romanum, Tit. XI, cap. iii.), particularly by means of the devout recitation of the Holy Rosary, is morally indispensable for the fruitful study of sacred doctrine, for the greater glory of Our Lord and for the salvation and edification of souls.

Well, those are my two cents... nay, they have been clemently vouchsafed me by holy grace, for I of myself can produce nothing but that which is damnably evil: it is by grace alone that man can work any good.

I 100% agree Hobble. That is why I haven't posted here for about 2-3 months now, and I will probably retire again when this thread has run its course.

Roman Catholic, I wasn't trying to brush aside the issue of circuмcision, I just haven't researched it in depth. Plus, I do not want it to come up as a secondary topic when I am trying to narrow the focus of discussion here.

But, to answer your question, I don't really know for sure the whole...degree of obligation God placed on mankind to receive circuмcision. See, NOW all are obliged to be baptized to be saved, and to be Subject to the Catholic church. But, I do not know alot about the degree of obligation for those who died without circuмcision. I will research it in the meantime, but until then, I will refrain from any rash statements on it.

Yes, that means I will retract what I said about those dying without circuмcision.

Thanks Gregory. I did not bring up the issue of circuмcision; I was replying to what you had written about it, but I understand how you do not want to pursue it any further now as a secondary topic.

Actually an earthly king can make laws for certain classes of people; laws that do not apply to him.

A King who is Almighty God definitely makes laws for humans that He is outside the scope of obeying.  Clearly those laws do not apply to Him. Humans need to obey them though, if possible. We are to endeavor to use the ordinary means of salvation. God gave them to us for our benefit and His glory.

YES. But, you are confusing two things here. Yes, clearly God has no need to be baptized, so clearly he has no need to be bound by the law he made for us. This is manifest and obvious. He is God. But his WILL to institute any means of salvation indicates their necessity right off the bat: Otherwise, why institute them at all? God has WILLED the means of salvation, and he does not change his mind. Therefore, he has bound himself to them.

As well as humans using the ordinary means, God can do extraordinay things via His extraordinay means. We can't place limits on God.

This is a vague and indefinite statement. Me most certainly CAN place limits on God, the limits he has by his own nature: He cannot lie, he cannot commit sin, he cannot contradict himself. He acts within these parameters, the parameters of his own nature, which is itself infinite.

There will never be a day when God will lie. It is impossible for him. There will never be a day when he acts needlessly, or when he does something imperfectly, as imperfection is subject to change: but God is changeless, immutable. Therefore, all his works are final, irrevocable, and complete in themselves. This includes the institution of laws and commands, such as the sacraments, and especially the sacrament of baptism. If any other way were possible, then why did he only mention one?

Unlike any earthly king, God has infinite power. He can perform miracles directly, or work them through humans. He made the sun do things in Portugal that humans would say is not possible, because He "broke or contradicted" laws, as we understand them.

There is a vast difference between the laws of nature and moral laws, therefore your argument does not stand. God will never break a moral command EVER, because he cannot lie. He has declared all need to be baptized to enter into heaven, and, since he cannot lie, he means exactly what he says. He instituted no other means of salvation except baptism. Therefore, unbaptized infants cannot hope to be saved: Indeed, the church says they are born to eternal destruction and misery and that they run to the left with the devil, and that they are by nature children of wrath and not of God.

God does not ever contradict Himself.

Gregory,

So you are saying that Christ died on the cross so that poor infants would have less chance of salvation than those who died before He instituted baptism? That He instituted a MORE restrictive system of salvation than Judaism for them? In that case they would all have been better of if Christ never came. This isn't logically problematic to you? Christ who died to open the gates of heaven to all men would shut it on helpless infants?

You say Chist willed baptism as the means to remit original sin. Christ also willed sacramental confession as the means to remit mortal sin. However, we know there are exceptions to this rule. Perfect contrition is one. Similarly there are exceptions to water baptism that Trent never intended to erase. Blood and desire are two of them.

God willed the sacrament as the normative means. Not the only means.

God said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you. Yet a baptized infant who never received communion goes to Heaven, correct? You are taking certain passages of Trent too literally and out of the context they were meant to be understood in.

This is why we leave the business of interpreting Council texts and the Bible to the Magisterium (which Aquinas humbly deferred all of his writings to) and not go off privately interpreting them to, as the Bible says, our own destruction.

Well, if it is a question of authorities, St.Thomas, in two places, on extraordinary means of infant baptism, granted as a privilege,

Quote

Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.

...

Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.

Suarez went even further, for example holding (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

Quote

"that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4)"

And Ludwig Ott, scholar who wrote oft-consulted theology manuals like "Fundamentals of Catholic dogma" stated further,

Quote

"Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

And on the back of this longstanding tradition, without however going into one detail or the other, wholly unnecessary for us to inquire beyond what the Church teaches into the hidden ways of God, this all that the Church has said, in response to the question posed by, as is their duty, the Catholic faithful to her visible Magisterium, which it is her duty to do (Mat 18:15-18) and which she always fulfils in every age.

It is possible, very improbable, never to be presumed, but possible for God to do so, as evinced by the Angelic Doctor and Ludwig Ott in this century. Therefore it is lawful to have a prayerful hope for this, always subject to the will of God, and ready to glorify Him even if one's child turns out to be, for reasons inscrutable to us, in hell.

Now limbus infantium, like limbus patrum, is a place in hell, but for us to gain some understanding of the difference of their fates, remember the difference between Lazarus and the rich men in the parable. The children there, in the words of the Catholic Encylopedia, "it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness."

Everyone you just quoted is at odds with the teaching of the Church in her dogmatic formulas, her ecuмenical councils and the teaching of her popes.

just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk

Sorry, but that character was attacking the Thomist view, as you are.  Claiming that the scholastics were corrupted by the Greeks.  Anyone who starts throwing around the label pelagian at people who believe in limbo is falling under the condemnation.

The condemnation does not condemn anyone who labels Limbo Pelagian.

You seem to have a characteristic Feeneyite defect in reading comprehension.  Calling limbo Pelagian is condemned.

 

The bull itself states that there is a type of Limbo (a middle place) that is Pelagian.

The bull states that it's condemned if you say that limbo without fire is the pelagian middle place.

 

The bull condemns those who assert that those who deny fire thereby introduce a middle place free of guilt and punishment.

It condemns those who call the Catholic idea of limbo a Pelagian middle place.  Which is what is being insinuated, in typically evasive Feeneyite fashion.