Author Topic: All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians... (Read 18671 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #75 on:** January 08, 2012, 03:11:41 PM »

Quote from: Augustinian

Yes, I have a problem with Limbo insofar as it denies the revelations of Christ through the Catholic Church.

But the Church doesn't have a problem with it. It has ruled on it. So you have a problem with Catholic teaching. Full stop. You're the one with the problem. People who believe in limbo don't have a problem. People who say belief in limbo is Pelagian definitely have a serious problem. The sort of sickness that takes pride in seeing God as subjecting infants to eternal torments as an absolute necessity of Catholic doctrine. It's certainly closely connected to the Feeneyite disease, in most cases.

Quote

The highway to hell is heresy, and that's what you're unfortunately in if you reject the Council of Carthage, the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent

But I'm not rejecting any of those. In accusing me of rejecting them, in insinuating that people on this thread thread are saying that babies are "innocent" (I don't know anyone claiming they are innocent of original sin) you are the one who is violating the Catholic Faith. Of course, we know that the Church teaches that those who condemn belief in limbo as pelagianism are rash slanderers who speak falsehoods.

Quote

in favor of Pelagianism. If you choose to follow Pelagius into hell, then that's your decision.

It's not Pelagianism. The Church has ruled. No either you can accept it or you can reject Catholicism.

Quote

My decision is to have faith in the infallible dogmas of the Church, not in Pelagius or the idle speculations of Scholastics.

"Idle speculations" of the scholastics. What insolence.

Augustinian · « **Reply #76 on:** January 08, 2012, 03:43:21 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

But the Church doesn't have a problem with it. It has ruled on it. So you have a problem with Catholic teaching. Full stop. You're the one with the problem. People who believe in limbo don't have a problem. People who say belief in limbo is Pelagian definitely have a serious problem. The sort of sickness that takes pride in seeing God as subjecting infants to eternal torments as an absolute necessity of Catholic doctrine. It's certainly closely connected to the Feeneyite disease, in most cases.

You blaspheme God, who has revealed as much. That is sickness.

Where did the Church ever teach Limbo?

Quote

But I'm not rejecting any of those. In accusing me of rejecting them, in insinuating that people on this thread thread are saying that babies are "innocent" (I don't know anyone claiming they are innocent of original sin) you are the one who is violating the Catholic Faith.

For all intents and purposes, you deny original sin. You do not believe it to be a real sin worthy of eternal punishment and damnation. Do you or do you not believe that babies who die without baptism are free of punishment, happy, and in the presence of God?

Quote

Of course, we know that the Church teaches that those who condemn belief in limbo as pelagianism are rash slanderers who speak falsehoods.

On top of your lack of comprehension, you're now being dishonest. It's been pointed out to you that Pope Pius VI taught that those who assert that excluding the punishment of fire by that very fact introduces a middle place is false, rash, etc.

Quote

It's not Pelagianism. The Church has ruled. No either you can accept it or you can reject Catholicism.

To say that those who die with the sole guilt of original sin are unpunished, happy, and in the presence of God is Pelagianism.

Quote

"Idle speculations" of the scholastics. What insolence.

Is the angel in a place? Can he be in several places at once? Can several angels be in the same place?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #77 on:** January 08, 2012, 03:58:48 PM »

Regarding your signature, Augustinian, you have to be a member for a week before you can use the PM feature.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #78 on:** January 08, 2012, 04:24:41 PM »

Quote from: Augustinian

Where did the Church ever teach Limbo?

You may be interested in this article from 2007:

Quote

The Pope will this week overturn a belief held by Roman Catholics since medieval times by abolishing the concept of Limbo.

Limbo is traditionally held to be the place where the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised and so freed from original sin.

It is also the fate of “holy people” such as the prophet Abraham who lived before the time of Jesus Christ, who Christians believe offered mankind redemption through his death and Resurrection.

This week a 30-strong Vatican international commission of theologians which has been examining Limbo began its final deliberations. Vatican sources said that it had concluded that all children who die do so in the expectation of “the universal salvation of God” and the “mediation of Christ”, whether baptised or not.

The theologians’ finding is that God wishes all souls to be saved, and that the souls of unbaptised children are entrusted to a “merciful God” whose ways of ensuring salvation cannot be known. “In effect, this means that all children who die go to Heaven” one source said.

The commission’s conclusions will be formally approved by Pope Benedict XVI at a mass on Friday in the Redemptoris Mater chapel in the Apostolic Palace, a richly decorated chapel restored by John Paul II and used for the proclamation of papal “magisterial teachings” as well as spiritual retreats and ecuмenical services.

The process of doing away with Limbo began under the late John Paul II. He was backed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – now Pope – who as John Paul II’s guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy once observed that Limbo had “never been a definitive truth of the faith”.

He added:”Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis”. The theological commission is currently chaired by Archbishop William Levada of the United States, the Pope’s chosen successor as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Christians hold that Heaven is a state of union with God, while Hell is separation from God. Christians have long wrestled, however, with the conundrum of what happened to those who lived a “good life” but died before the time of Jesus, as well as the fate of children who die without being christened.

The answer since the 13th century has been Limbo – from the Latin limbus, meaning a hem or boundary – held to be the temporary resting place of “the souls of good persons who died before the resurrection of Jesus” (limbus patrum, or Limbo of the Fathers) and the home in the afterlife of “those who die in infancy without having been freed from original sin” (limbus infantium, or Limbo of the Children).

St Thomas Aquinas described the “limbo of children” as an “eternal state of natural joy” in which unbaptised children were unaware of the greater joy of Heaven.

The concept was given papal authority by Pope Pius X (1903-1914), who in his Catechism declared Limbo to be a place where the unbaptised “do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer…they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory”.

This was quietly dropped from the Cathechism issued under John Paul II, who in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) – referring to victims of abortion – said the Church “does not know the fate of unbaptised infants” and can only “trust in God’s mercy and love.”

Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the theological commission, said that dropping Limbo reflected “a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love.”

This is not only proof that the Church had originally taught Limbo, but also shows how corrupt Benedict is.

Augustinian · « **Reply #79 on:** January 08, 2012, 05:01:54 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

This is not only proof that the Church had originally taught Limbo...

It does nothing of the sort. All it does is show that Benedict XVI and the bishops and theologians under him are Pelagians, deny multiple councils of the Church, and are heretics of epic proportions.

Quote

The Pope will this week overturn a belief held by Roman Catholics since medieval times by abolishing the concept of Limbo.

How is this proof that the Church originally taught Limbo when it says here that it's only been believed since Medieval times?

Quote

St Thomas Aquinas described the “limbo of children” as an “eternal state of natural joy”

That's Pelagianism.

Quote

The concept was given papal authority by Pope Pius X (1903-1914), who in his Catechism declared Limbo to be a place where the unbaptised “do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer…they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory”.

That's a lie. Pius X never "declared" anything, whether it was in a catechism or not. There is no evidence he even wrote the catechism. If you look at the early versions of the catechism, you will see that it was written by a cardinal with the alleged "approval of Pope Pius X".

Also, that quote from the so-called "Pius X" catechism is explicitly Pelagian and heretical. "...neither do they deserve hell or purgatory." This clearly denies that Limbo is in hell, which means Limbo must be some middle place, which is the exact thing Pope Pius VI called Pelagian.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #80 on:** January 08, 2012, 05:02:13 PM »

Good post, Spiritus. I know a few on-the-edge NOers into traditional Catholicism/sedevacantism that will like to read that.

Just shows how corrupt Benny and them all are, and how everyone needs to oppose them now. Not tomorrow, not after a few more meetings, right now. Its too late to apologize, as the pop song goes.

Gregory I · « **Reply #81 on:** January 08, 2012, 05:26:18 PM »

Actually, there is alot of confusion here regarding several points:

1. Everyone here HAS to agree that when an unbaptized infant dies, they go to hell in SOME SENSE, because ALL the scholastic theologians place the Limbo of the infants IN HELL.

2. The "speculation" on infant damnation and limbo was never a speculation as to PRINCIPLE (That unbaptized babies are deprived of the vision of God and are punished in hell), but as to DETAIL. I.E. what do the pains of the damned infant consist of? Augustine said Fire, but to a lesser extent, Abelard said spiritual suffering from the lack of the vision of God.

3. St. Albert the great was the FIRST to coin the term Limbo in reference to the fate of Infants, and St. Thomas was the first to teach that it consisted of zero pain, and in fact natural happiness. This is 800 years AFTER St. Augustine.

4. If St. Augustine was in error, why did nobody before Aquinas come to his conclusions?

5. The DOGMA of the Church, as set forth by the ecuмenical councils of Lyons, Florence and Trent, Specify that those who die in original sin alone are in Hell, where they are punished, but with a different punishment from those who die in mortal sin. There is room to discuss both the type and degree of punishment if we go by the language of this canon alone.
a. Key question: How many types of people die in mortal sin alone? Generally, one: Those who do not have the use of reason; specifically, two. Infants, and the mentally handicapped.

6. The Council of Trent has authoritatively declared in the fourth paragraph of the fifth session, that the words of our Lord "unless a man be born of water and the Holy spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" apply to infants.

"... For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

See here: The decrees on original sin, paragraph four http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

7. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Promulgated by a Pope and a Saint, Pius V, is the AUTHENTIC interpreter of the council of Trent. It states without any lack of clarity that those who are not born again, are born to eternal misery and destruction. See Here: Key word search "misery" http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

Necessity of Baptism

"If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

I could go on...We haven't even seen the quotes of Sts. Augustine, Fulgentius, Prosper and Caesarius, Gregory I, etc....

Gregory I · « **Reply #82 on:** January 08, 2012, 05:35:41 PM »

That docuмent doesn't even teach. it simply says "Here's some history." THen it says "Here are some problems we have with that theological history." Then it ends with "But we don't really know for sure."

Wow. I just wasted a day of my life when I read that docuмent, it is really worthless.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #83 on:** January 08, 2012, 05:57:26 PM »

Nobody has really addressed my points.

Namely, the most important. That God can remit original sin outside Baptism. It defies logic to think baptism is absolute where circuмcision was not. Thus somehow Christ came to damn unbaptized infants who were eligible for Heaven before He instituted baptism?

That truly makes sense to you? Does it not offend your sense of justice in the least that an infant baby whose parents don't baptize him and has no will and dies, burns in eternal Hellfire of the damned? Is that justice? Or sadism? If I truly believed that is what the Church taught de Fide, I'd leave it. It would then be a monstrous institution. Thankfully it does not.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #84 on:** January 08, 2012, 06:39:39 PM »

I wonder if one of these characters is Pope Augustine.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #85 on:** January 08, 2012, 08:39:24 PM »

Quote from: Augustinian

How is this proof that the Church originally taught Limbo when it says here that it's only been believed since Medieval times?

The Church never made its teaching on Limbo an official Dogma, but never-the-less it is what the Church generally believed for centuries, and it's what several Popes taught in their encyclicals.

Quote from: Santo Subito

Does it not offend your sense of justice in the least that an infant baby whose parents don't baptize him and has no will and dies, burns in eternal Hellfire of the damned? Is that justice? Or sadism? If I truly believed that is what the Church taught de Fide, I'd leave it. It would then be a monstrous institution. Thankfully it does not.

From my understanding, the Church does not know for certain where unbaptized infants end up for eternity, which is perhaps why they did not make the teaching of Limbo a Dogma. But the Church still believed in Limbo for many centuries until Benedict changed it in 2007.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #86 on:** January 08, 2012, 10:07:30 PM »

Spiritus,

BXVI did not change the teaching on limbo.

I would have thought the media would get tougher scrutiny from a board such as this.

The article you posted was horribly inaccurate. The author had an agenda and/ or little knowledge of the docuмent.

If you read the docuмent you'll see that it in no way was meant to "reject" limbo or to declare that all unbaptized infants go to Heaven as dogma. The only thing it did was provide some theological basis for the opinion that unbaptized infants COULD POSSIBlLY go to Heaven. The docuмent itself states one is surely free to still believe in limbo. It also stresses the need for parents to baptize their infants without delay, since, obviously, it is the only 100% safe course.

Please read the docuмent if you have time and then compare it with the article. You'll see how it is shoddy journalism at best.

Gregory I · « **Reply #87 on:** January 08, 2012, 10:34:01 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Augustinian
How is this proof that the Church originally taught Limbo when it says here that it's only been believed since Medieval times?

The Church never made its teaching on Limbo an official Dogma, but never-the-less it is what the Church generally believed for centuries, and it's what several Popes taught in their encyclicals.

Quote from: Santo Subito
Does it not offend your sense of justice in the least that an infant baby whose parents don't baptize him and has no will and dies, burns in eternal Hellfire of the damned? Is that justice? Or sadism? If I truly believed that is what the Church taught de Fide, I'd leave it. It would then be a monstrous institution. Thankfully it does not.

From my understanding, the Church does not know for certain where unbaptized infants end up for eternity, which is perhaps why they did not make the teaching of Limbo a Dogma. But the Church still believed in Limbo for many centuries until Benedict changed it in 2007.

The church HAS defined the final resting place of unbaptized babies; Hell. Apart from the vision of God, undergoing punishment. That is the teaching of Lyons II, Florence and Trent. That's a three shot blast that no side-stepping can get around guys. You don't take that seriously?

Santo, how many kinds of people die in original sin alone?

No, the belief that unbaptized babies who die enjoy natural happiness has only been taught since the time of Aquinas, and it is only speculative and is on its face counter to the teaching of the church revealed in her ecuмenical councils, her popes, and regional councils approved by Ecuмenical councils.

What would a Pelagian and heretical understanding of the fate of unbaptized infants be in your opinion santo or spiritus?

BTW Santo, INFANTS are NOT Innocent. You have to understand that first. Second, understand that all are destined for Hell FIRST unless God intervenes.

Gregory I · « **Reply #88 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:16:04 AM »

Nobody has really addressed my points.

Allow me to indulge you.

Namely, the most important. That God can remit original sin outside Baptism.

God possesses the power to do so. Look at the blessed Virgin who was born without the taint of Sin.

Look at John the Baptist and Jeremiah, they were sanctified in the womb.

That is not the problem.

It defies logic to think baptism is absolute where circuмcision was not.

No, it does not. Because we have a certain principle at work here: Circuмcision was given to the Jews to show forth their being chosen by God and united to his covenant. But God did not give the Jews a commission to convert the world to Judaism. Rather, he did not give the Hebrew people the universal task of converting everyone to Judaism and making them Jews, though they could become Jews if they wanted to.

Remember the Parable of the Talents: To whom little is given, little be required. But to whom much is given, much will be required.

The world was given little, and little was required. Scripture even speaks of God allowing or at least tolerating the misguided attempts of the gentiles to know him, because they had no way of having any knowledge of Judaism, and God had not willed to make them Jews.

But when Christ came, he fulfilled the law and the prophets, and he placed upon the entire world the obligation to know him in order to be saved. There is no other way for anyone after Pentecost to be saved than through Christ. This is a universal obligation imposed upon the world by God that was not previously imposed. Christ spilled his blood for his friends, and the world was offered that blood to bathe in freely. The blood of God.

MUCH HAD BEEN GIVEN!

Now, much will be required.

On Holy Saturday, when he trampled down the gates of Hell and descended to the Limbo of the Fathers, he led out the just and all those who were righteous in his sight (Yes, the Holy innocents as well, who are martyrs on account of their being slain because of the name of Christ). He emptied Hell of the Just, and only those who were stained by original sin alone or mortal sin, infant or not, were left.

Now, Christ made Baptism obligatory ONLY after Pentecost, the birthday of the church.

Therefore, since Pentecost, the entire world is under the obligation to come to Christ for salvation, and the only means he instituted for this is Baptism, which alone unites a man to the Church, outside of which absolutely none are saved.

But, because this obligation is placed on all humanity, humanity is accountable as a whole for their sinfulness: Every infant of a single day, every man of 100 years, must account for his sinfulness before God. Unless the stain and Guilt of original sin is remitted, along with any mortal sin, there will be no entrance into heaven.

Thus somehow Christ came to damn unbaptized infants who were eligible for Heaven before He instituted baptism?

Don't be facetious. Christ came to save his elect, not to damn people unconditionally.

From all eternity Christ has known whom he will save. Therefore, he has known from all eternity who will respond to the victorious delight of grace he sends their way. Therefore, when he died upon the cross, though his blood merited and was capable of saving the entire world, he only willed to make his grace efficacious for those he had in his mind for all eternity: his elect. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches as much as well as St. Augustine. So, though his death was sufficient for all, he only willed to communicate its merits to some, as the council of Trent plainly teaches.

Council of Trent, Session 6 Chapter III

"But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated"

This includes those infants he wills, and excludes those infants he does not will.

That truly makes sense to you? Does it not offend your sense of justice in the least that an infant baby whose parents don't baptize him and has no will and dies, burns in eternal Hellfire of the damned? Is that justice? Or sadism?

Yes it makes sense, because I haven't twisted blood out of a stone trying to come to the opposite conclusion. It's manifest and plain. It's dogma, and it is taught by the Popes, saints and regional councils of the Catholic church, which councils were given Papal endorsement, promulgated by said Popes, and ratified by two ecuмenical councils.

You do not understand original sin or justice. You obviously do not believe that the GUILT for Adam's sin resides in the soul of every single child conceived on the face of this planet. Trent teaches the opposite. You obviously do not believe that every single soul in original sin ALONE is an enemy of God, already condemned, under his wrath, a partner with the devil, incapable of being supernaturally pleasing, and runs to the left.

Infants are NOT INNOCENT. They possess no innocence except in a qualified and relative way to us who are tainted with mortal sin. But not in any absolute or meaningful way. They are damned already from their conception.

THIS is why grace is so amazing! This is what makes the power and the beauty of God so majestic and so powerful! Don't you see? When the darkness of human nature is understood, and explored, and when we know our just desserts, only THEN do we really praise God for granting us the grace of baptism and allowing us access to his perfect society, the church.

Until we can weep for our sins and our sinfulness, we will not fully appreciate God's choices. Everything is a grace, and all is from God.

If I truly believed that is what the Church taught de Fide, I'd leave it. It would then be a monstrous institution. Thankfully it does not.

No, it does. You may be in denial, but the historical record is clear, as well as the dogmas of the church's ecuмenical councils. Man is darkened in his will and sinful. God alone is pure and capable of freeing our will enough to actually desire him worthily. Those who die in the darkness stay in the dark. They are punished, justly, and they will not see the face of God. Ever. This too is the will of God: That no unclean thing enter into heaven.

One other thing, Hell is not full of little children. The Soul of an infant is a human soul like any other, and it's not as if a bunch of little kids were getting lashed in their infantile flesh. These are disembodied souls, human beings awaiting their final judgement when they will be clad in their bodies. It's not even clear if they will be infants then.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #89 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:23:03 AM »

bump

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Gregory I
Aquinas DID come up with the idea of limbo. He was the first to give it that name, as far as I know, and he was also the first to indicate that unbaptized children enjoy positive natural happiness and even a natural knowledge of God.

Nobody ever taught that before him. That is why I do not personally accept it. But, I do not think it is heretical, so long as he maintains that limbo is a part of hell, and he does. I think there is some inconsistency in his thought here.

The term Transubstantiation was also coined after St Thomas's time. It was not a new belief.

As far as the claim that there was inconsitency in the thought of St Thomas; could It posibly be that you don't understand what the Angelic Doctor understood? He had arguably the most brilliant intellect as a gift from God which he used for His glory and our benefit.

Could it possibly be that you don't know how to reconcile something that was reconcilable (and possibly with great ease) for the great intellect of St Thomas?