Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Stubborn on May 09, 2024, 05:38:01 AM
-
:facepalm:
Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL20287216/#:~:text=VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The,who die without baptism went.)
August 9, 2007
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.
In a long-awaited docuмent, the Church's International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an "unduly restrictive view of salvation".
The 41-page docuмent was published on Friday by Origins, the docuмentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the docuмent, called "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised".
The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The docuмent was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century.
"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation," it said.
"There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them)."
The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.
"NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM"
The docuмent stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or "used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament".
Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning "border" or "edge", was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.
"People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian," the docuмent said.
It said the study was made all the more pressing because "the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent".
The commission's conclusions had been widely expected.
In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was "only a theological hypothesis" and "never a defined truth of faith".
In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church's official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.
-
I don’t get it? Why the :facepalm:? That’s your church, but you erroneously called it the Catholic Church in your subject heading.
-
"Pope" Benedict, the bastion of Tradition. :laugh1:
-
The docuмent stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or "used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament".
Docuмent protests too much, because it knows that's exactly what it's doing ... negating the necessity of Baptism. What a bunch of liars and deceivers.
We've gone from St. Augustine, who, along with most of the Fathers, taught that unbaptized infants go to Hell, to the notion of Limbo (pioneered by Abelard and then picked up by St. Thomas ... the reasoning for which is unassailable and closely related to the true Catholic understanding of natural vs. supernatural life), to now where unbaptized infants go to Heaven (100% Pelagianism).
-
I don’t get it? Why the :facepalm:? That’s your church, but you erroneously called it the Catholic Church in your subject heading.
While he's echoing the article's title, I agree that a Traditional Catholic should never assert that the "Catholic Church" has done any such thing ... but these are more fruits of the R&R mindset. "Catholic Church" has introduced a sacrilegeous Mass, "Catholic Church" has introduced doubful Rites for Holy Orders, "Catholic Church" has corrupted Catholic doctrine, etc. That's why I often rebuke R&R for blasphemy, since they're constantly making propositions along these lines.
-
I don’t get it? Why the :facepalm:? That’s your church, but you erroneously called it the Catholic Church in your subject heading.
:facepalm:
-
While he's echoing the article's title, I agree that a Traditional Catholic should never assert that the "Catholic Church" has done any such thing ... but these are more fruits of the R&R mindset. "Catholic Church" has introduced a sacrilegeous Mass, "Catholic Church" has introduced doubful Rites for Holy Orders, "Catholic Church" has corrupted Catholic doctrine, etc. That's why I often rebuke R&R for blasphemy, since they're constantly making propositions along these lines.
Yes, you and other sedes - *only* sedes are known for rebuking R&R, because sedes here make their opinions dogma. Then you want us to all be lumped together. :facepalm:
-
Once again, the Vatican II theology. 25 years ago, while praying the rosary in front of an abortion clinic, a Novus Ordo woman tells me that aborted babies go straight to heaven. I told her, "Well, if that is true, then abortion is the greatest thing imaginable." She had this horrified look on her face. She should have been horrified by her own stupidity.
-
Then you want us to all be lumped together. :facepalm:
Siskel and Ebert, I mean Salza and Siscoe, lumped you in with sedes. Sedes did not do that and have no intention of doing so. Maybe you missed that??
-
Once again, the Vatican II theology. 25 years ago, while praying the rosary in front of an abortion clinic, a Novus Ordo woman tells me that aborted babies go straight to heaven. I told her, "Well, if that is true, then abortion is the greatest thing imaginable." She had this horrified look on her face. She should have been horrified by her own stupidity.
Unfortunately, this is what she learned in her church. I would venture to guess that every pro-lifer in the V2 sect believes the same thing.
-
:facepalm:
Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL20287216/#:~:text=VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The,who die without baptism went.)
August 9, 2007
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, …
And yet you still think these anti-Catholic assholes are true Popes.
-
Siskel and Ebert, I mean Salza and Siscoe, lumped you in with sedes. Sedes did not do that and have no intention of doing so. Maybe you missed that??
No, he didn't.
-
I couldn't imagine that he had but was trying to be nice and give him the benefit of the doubt. No words really.
-
Siskel and Ebert, I mean Salza and Siscoe, lumped you in with sedes. Sedes did not do that and have no intention of doing so. Maybe you missed that??
Yes, the sedes do that. One (major?) sede even made a youtube practically saying as much, it's in the other thread. Crazy I know.
-
And yet you still think these anti-Catholic assholes are true Popes.
I think the pope needs prayers and pray for him daily. And you?
-
I think the pope needs prayers and pray for him daily. And you?
Are you dyslexic? Have you understood nothing put before you over the years?
There is no Pope for whom to pray.
I pray to have a Pope.
-
Siskel and Ebert, I mean Salza and Siscoe, lumped you in with sedes. Sedes did not do that and have no intention of doing so. Maybe you missed that??
Why should anyone care about what Salza and Sisco think?
-
Are you dyslexic? Have you understood nothing put before you over the years?
There is no Pope for whom to pray.
I pray to have a Pope.
No, I am not dyslexic. I have come to understand over the decades that most sedes here believe and promote their opinion as tho it is a de fide doctrine taught by the Church.
You do not accept that "there is no pope..." is only your opinion.
-
Why should anyone care about what Salza and Sisco think?
Exactly. What's crazy to me, is that S&S never did the lumping, it was the sede who runs Novus Ordo Watch who did that.
-
Why should anyone care about what Salza and Sisco think?
Meg, S&S is being brought up because of this thread:
John Salza: It's Trads that are the "Great Apostasy" - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/john-salza-us-trads-are-the-'great-apostasy'/)
-
Exactly. What's crazy to me, is that S&S never did the lumping, it was the sede who runs Novus Ordo Watch who did that.
False. Salza is very clear who he is referring to:
The Great Apostasy with John Salza and Robert Siscoe (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0OqqZ1Y4SY)
-
Meg, S&S is being brought up because of this thread:
John Salza: It's Trads that are the "Great Apostasy" - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/john-salza-us-trads-are-the-'great-apostasy'/)
What does that have to do with the subject of the OP, which is infants and limbo?
-
What does that have to do with the subject of the OP, which is infants and limbo?
It doesn't. Stubborn was the one to bring up the "lumping together" issue in Reply #6 of this thread (which was his issue with the S&S thread I posted).
Meg, please get caught up first.
-
It doesn't. Stubborn was the one to bring up the "lumping together" issue in Reply #6 of this thread (which was his issue with the S&S thread I posted).
Meg, please get caught up first.
The thread had already been derailed by sedes before Stubborn said anything. Not that that's unusual at all.
-
So, what would you like to say about the topic of the OP, Meg?
-
So, what would you like to say about the topic of the OP, Meg?
Well, the OP article on the subject of getting rid of limbo seems like something that the modernists who control and occupy the Church would do. If limbo doesn't exist for infants, then it follows that they are saved.
What is your view of the OP article?
-
Why should anyone care about what Salza and Sisco think?
Well, Traditional Catholics shouldn't ... except that I would get into heated debates with Sean Johnson, and he would continue to quote S&S in support of the R&R position, without caring that they were applying the same principles to condemn R&R Catholics as well, thereby invalidating the principles. But Sean didn't care.
-
The thing is that Limbo as a theological construct is intended as a merciful approach to deceased unbaptised infants and naturally-virtuous, unbaptised adults. To abolish Limbo is not to move these departed souls to heaven, but to consign them to eternal fire in hell.
At the time of the Jansenist controversy, the Magisterium (I cannot remember which docuмent and have no time now to look it up) declared that no Catholic is obliged to believe in Limbo as it is a theological construct not contained in the Deposit of Faith. However, the docuмent continues, no Catholic may deny the possibility of Limbo.
-
The thing is that Limbo as a theological construct is intended as a merciful approach to deceased unbaptised infants and naturally-virtuous, unbaptised adults. To abolish Limbo is not to move these departed souls to heaven, but to consign them to eternal fire in hell.
At the time of the Jansenist controversy, the Magisterium (I cannot remember which docuмent and have no time now to look it up) declared that no Catholic is obliged to believe in Limbo as it is a theological construct not contained in the Deposit of Faith. However, the docuмent continues, no Catholic may deny the possibility of Limbo.
Yes, the proposition condemned the condemnation of Limbo, asserting that it cannot be declared Pelagianism. I am very much persuaded of Limbo from the arguments laid out by St. Thomas Aquinas, and I believe that the vast majority of theologians in the past 4 or 5 hundred years have been also, though perhaps their motivation for getting behind Limbo weren't theological, but rather part of the emerging trend to undermine EENS dogma. It is still permitted to hold the Augustinian opinion, though it has long been the minority opinion. Cajetan tried to float the notion that unbaptized infants could be saved by some vicarious votum from their parents, but St. Pius V had the opinion stricken from his works (among quite a few others).
Of course if one applies the Cekadist principles he and many anti-Feeneyites adduce against BoD, since the nearly-uanimous opinion of theologians has been in favor of Limbo for centuries, one would have to conclude that it's now a mortal sin to hold the Augustinian opinion. Of course, the Augustinian opinion was held unanimously for about 700 years at one point, so then Limbo should have been declared a heretical innovation according to the principles of Cekadism.
-
Yes, you and other sedes - *only* sedes are known for rebuking R&R, because sedes here make their opinions dogma. Then you want us to all be lumped together. :facepalm:
Are you saying you're not in union with Bergoglio, R&R, and indult?
-
Are you saying you're not in union with Bergoglio, R&R, and indult?
."...It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or
all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those
who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps,
unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the
Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of
course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!" - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989
-
The thing is that Limbo as a theological construct is intended as a merciful approach to deceased unbaptised infants and naturally-virtuous, unbaptised adults. To abolish Limbo is not to move these departed souls to heaven, but to consign them to eternal fire in hell.
At the time of the Jansenist controversy, the Magisterium (I cannot remember which docuмent and have no time now to look it up) declared that no Catholic is obliged to believe in Limbo as it is a theological construct not contained in the Deposit of Faith. However, the docuмent continues, no Catholic may deny the possibility of Limbo.
In his Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII declared to the Universal Church that: "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."
Infants who die unbaptized, die in original sin only, but an adult who dies unbaptized, if he somehow managed to never commit a sin his whole life, still dies in original sin and the sin of unbelief. The idea that adults who die unbaptized go to limbo requires them to have lived their whole life without ever having sinned, and that their unbelief in Christ, which is the Church, is not a sin - John 16:8 "And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me."
"Unbaptized infants who die go to Limbo... Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell." - Fr. Feeney
-
False. Salza is very clear who he is referring to:
The Great Apostasy with John Salza and Robert Siscoe (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0OqqZ1Y4SY)
My apologies to you and to the others, you are right, I am totally wrong, it was Salza lumping all trads together as being apostates. I listened to it again, and once more I am sorry for saying the sede who runs NOW claimed the sedes wanted to be lumped together with all traditionalists, he said no such thing.
-
My apologies to you and to the others, you are right, I am totally wrong, it was Salza lumping all trads together as being apostates. I listened to it again, and once more I am sorry for saying the sede who runs NOW claimed the sedes wanted to be lumped together with all traditionalists, he said no such thing.
Thank you, Sir.
-
Well, the OP article on the subject of getting rid of limbo seems like something that the modernists who control and occupy the Church would do. If limbo doesn't exist for infants, then it follows that they are saved.
What is your view of the OP article?
My initial reaction was that it was old news, so I already knew about Benedict's machinations (which is why I replied the way I did originally). He is typically held up as some bastion of Tradition by some, when reality is he was nothing of the sort.
I obviously disagree with the author's view of limbo, but I did find his play on words related to death amusing. :laugh1:
My other view is that, because of this, those in the V2 sect believe unbaptized babies go straight to Heaven. As a result, they do not know the real evil of abortion.
-
In his Bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII declared to the Universal Church that: "We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins."
Infants who die unbaptized, die in original sin only, but an adult who dies unbaptized, if he somehow managed to never commit a sin his whole life, still dies in original sin and the sin of unbelief. The idea that adults who die unbaptized go to limbo requires them to have lived their whole life without ever having sinned, and that their unbelief in Christ, which is the Church, is not a sin - John 16:8 "And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. 9 Of sin: because they believed not in me."
"Unbaptized infants who die go to Limbo... Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell." - Fr. Feeney
There's nothing in Catholic theology to rule out the possibility of Limbo for adults. You're missing the distinction between the guilt of sin and the punishment due to sin. While there's no remission of sin, there can be a remission of the punishment due to sin ... which is the state that an adult in Limbo would be. St. Ambrose believed in a "washing" without "crowning" for unbaptized martyrs (and potentially Valentinian). St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in the passage where he rejects BoD, says that there are those who are not good enough to be crowned (enter the Kingdom) and not bad enough to be punished. In the passage from Pius IX that's commonly used to back BoD, what he actually says is that those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own (i.e., in invincible ignorance) will not be afflicted with "punishments" (Latin poenis). So while adults in Limbo would still be separated from supernatural life (without their sins remitted), they would not (in this theory) be afflicted with punishments, sufferings ... similar to the infants in Limbo, who while they did not have Original Sin remitted by Baptism nevertheless are not afflicted with any punishments.
We see the distinction between guilt of sin and punishment due to sin working in the other direction also. If someone goes to Confession with the proper dispositions, his sin is remitted, i.e. the guilt of his sin, but the temporal punishment (poena) due to sin can still remain. That's why there's a Purgatory. So, conversely, adults in Limbo (such as unbaptized martyrs and possibly others) would have the punishment remitted but not the guilt (causing separation from God's supernatural life). Due to the separation aspect, Limbo is often considered to be part of "Hell", so in a sense, they are in Hell (the guilty of sin -> separation from God) but in another they are not (punishment due to sin) ... and that's why it's called "Limbo", since both aspects are true.
-
There's nothing in Catholic theology to rule out the possibility of Limbo for adults. You're missing the distinction between the guilt of sin and the punishment due to sin. While there's no remission of sin, there can be a remission of the punishment due to sin ... which is the state that an adult in Limbo would be. St. Ambrose believed in a "washing" without "crowning" for unbaptized martyrs (and potentially Valentinian). St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in the passage where he rejects BoD, says that there are those who are not good enough to be crowned (enter the Kingdom) and not bad enough to be punished. In the passage from Pius IX that's commonly used to back BoD, what he actually says is that those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own (i.e., in invincible ignorance) will not be afflicted with "punishments" (Latin poenis). So while adults in Limbo would still be separated from supernatural life (without their sins remitted), they would not (in this theory) be afflicted with punishments, sufferings ... similar to the infants in Limbo, who while they did not have Original Sin remitted by Baptism nevertheless are not afflicted with any punishments.
We see the distinction between guilt of sin and punishment due to sin working in the other direction also. If someone goes to Confession with the proper dispositions, his sin is remitted, i.e. the guilt of his sin, but the temporal punishment (poena) due to sin can still remain. That's why there's a Purgatory. So, conversely, adults in Limbo (such as unbaptized martyrs and possibly others) would have the punishment remitted but not the guilt (causing separation from God's supernatural life). Due to the separation aspect, Limbo is often considered to be part of "Hell", so in a sense, they are in Hell (the guilty of sin -> separation from God) but in another they are not (punishment due to sin) ... and that's why it's called "Limbo", since both aspects are true.
Well, for me it's a mute point because of original sin, wherein man enters this world and lives their whole life inclined to evil (whether baptized or not), negating any hope of "naturally-virtuous" - which is the heresy of Naturalism, even if in some ways they may come across to us as being so. I do not believe an adult outside of the Church can live his life naturally virtuous, impossible.
As Fr. Wathen puts it (talking about the NO bishops).....
"...They (the bishops) are going to have to recognize that liberalism is intrinsically false and will not work, because beneath liberalism, the philosophical basis of liberalism, is what we call naturalism. Naturalism proclaims, among other heresies, that there is no such thing as original sin, that man is basically good, that he means well and if you let him grow up, he’ll grow up good, he’ll grow up moral, he’ll grow up to be a good fellow.
But Catholic doctrine says that man is not basically good, that he comes into the world bent on evil, and if you leave him to himself, he’ll become a savage, he’ll become amoral. He’ll not only do most wicked things but he will try to justify them.
We have to recognize that this is the error of liberalism, that it wants to treat all men as if they really are not bad and that the only reason they are bad is that they are misguided, that they’re victims of circuмstances and of their environment."
-
St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in the passage where he rejects BoD, says that there are those who are not good enough to be crowned (enter the Kingdom) and not bad enough to be punished. [...]
We see the distinction between guilt of sin and punishment due to sin working in the other direction also. If someone goes to Confession with the proper dispositions, his sin is remitted, i.e. the guilt of his sin, but the temporal punishment (poena) due to sin can still remain. [...]
Yet most people don't want to hear about consequences, whether in this life or in the next. They mistakenly assume that forgiveness (i.e., remission of sin) means that they can henceforth skip along carefree and innocently, shiny prizes for everyone (as if God's mercy is a cheap trifle). Even among those who mock and shun the errors of the funerals-in-white crowd, the reality of temporal punishment often is resisted.
-
Well, for me it's a mute point because of original sin, wherein man enters this world and lives their whole life inclined to evil (whether baptized or not), negating any hope of "naturally-virtuous" - which is the heresy of Naturalism, even if in some ways they may come across to us as being so. I do not believe an adult outside of the Church can live his life naturally virtuous, impossible.
Agree basically, yet this leaves out the intervening effect of individual free will.
Suppose there's a hypothetical savage out there whose given nature optimally does permit him to try to do what's right, resist the evil around him, and seek in his limited way to discern what is and isn't true. Yes, there's Original Sin. But since he's born with the capacity for reason, there still must be a conscious decision in each instance to reject the good. Given the pull of human respect and other worldly temptations, of course he'd succuмb. (Here's where the wishful thinking of some of the missionary Jesuits went ruinously off course and continues now in tiresome arguments over cultural relativism.)
Thus, the problem isn't so much that this fantasy of "natural virtue" does/doesn't suffice. (That's the level of argument where modernist tactics would have us bogged down, without even having to mention God.) The problem is that the heresy of Naturalism cynically denies that supernatural grace exists and is efficacious within the person, and further that we each must take daily responsibility for accepting or disdaining this salvific gift. Otherwise, why bother to insist on the Sacraments?
[If I've inadvertently muddled the various definitions of grace above, I apologize and welcome correction.]
-
Salza lumping all trads together as being apostates.
Thanks, Stubborn. No problem. Salza definitely taking one off the deep end.
(https://i.imgur.com/BMgVuR1.gif)
-
Agree basically, yet this leaves out the intervening effect of individual free will.
Suppose there's a hypothetical savage out there whose given nature optimally does permit him to try to do what's right, resist the evil around him, and seek in his limited way to discern what is and isn't true. Yes, there's Original Sin. But since he's born with the capacity for reason, there still must be a conscious decision in each instance to reject the good. Given the pull of human respect and other worldly temptations, of course he'd succuмb. (Here's where the wishful thinking of some of the missionary Jesuits went ruinously off course and continues now in tiresome arguments over cultural relativism.)
Thus, the problem isn't so much that this fantasy of "natural virtue" does/doesn't suffice. (That's the level of argument where modernist tactics would have us bogged down, without even having to mention God.) The problem is that the heresy of Naturalism cynically denies that supernatural grace exists and is efficacious within the person, and further that we each must take daily responsibility for accepting or disdaining this salvific gift. Otherwise, why bother to insist on the Sacraments?
[If I've inadvertently muddled the various definitions of grace above, I apologize and welcome correction.]
Yes, good points you brought up. St. Therese says that no one is saved against his will and no one is damned against his will. Which agrees with you saying that "a conscience decision must be made in each instance to reject [or accept] the good" - which are promptings from God. Unbaptized adults have the capacity to correspond to these promptings which are there ultimately in order to lead him to getting baptized and entering the Church, yet those who die unbaptized make the conscience decision to reject those promptings, and it is on that account that they are damned forever and don't go to Limbo.
-
It’s false, and one of the condemned Jansenist propositions, that there can be no natural virtue without supernatural grace. There absolutely can be and is. Common sense alone tells us there is and we see the difference all around us. Of course such virtue does not have supernatural merit, but you’re absolutely failing to distinguish between the natural and supernatural, something which St. Thomas did masterfully.
Failing to understand Catholic theology has led to some Jansenism among Trads here.
-
As Fr. Wathen puts it
No, Fr Wathen talking about the errors of Naturalism is not a condemnation of Limbo.
An unbaptized person can have sorrow for sins (it is still a gift of grace), as even Trent says this is a requirement for an adult receiving baptism. Sanctifying graces can only be had in the Church but actual graces are available to every human being born.
A natural sorrow for sin (without baptism) would lead to Limbo. God is not a sadist. Some people aren’t saved but also not damned.
-
Salza definitely taking one off the deep end.
Yes. His downward spiral started when, pressed in an interview, in order to remain true to his (false) principles, he had to assert that Joe Biden is more of a Catholic than Archbishop Lefebvre does. I liken this to something akin to a sin against the Holy Ghost, when the Pharisees were claiming Our Lord was of the devil.
See, for people who possess intellectual honesty, if you take your principles to their logical conclusion and they lead to absurdity, ad absurdum, you take a step back and re-evaluate where you went wrong. Instead, Salza doubles down to the point of clinging to his absurdities, such as that Trad Catholics are "the Great Apostasy" and Joe Biden is a better Catholic than +Lefebvre. You take a wrong turn in the woods and go down a bad path, get off the trail, and end up by a swamp. You realize you took a wrong turn somewhere. Instead, Salza, refusing to admit his mistake, has waded neck deep into the swamp, insisting that this is the right path.
It happened to me in the past, where my erroneous principles (the heresy "cooties" thinking) led to the absurd conclusion that I was the only Catholic left in the world, and perhaps even I wasn't. At that point I was like, "Welp, I got something wrong here. Not sure what, but I'll try to pray and think about it, but it's ridiculous that I'm the only Catholic left in the world." Not so for Salza in terms of his erroneous principles.
-
failing to distinguish between the natural and supernatural, something which St. Thomas did masterfully.
Masterfully with precision of terminology.
Often it seems that discussions run aground if there isn't clarity and agreement as to what is being discussed. Natural virtue in the Thomistic definition is not at all the same as "natural virtue" in Rousseau's wicked fables. The latter has tainted Catholic understanding since before V2. Without the properly entrenched mental training in pre-"Enlightenment" theology, the humanist virus will work its confusion leading to (among other things) sentiment-driven distortions of Limbo, Heaven, and Hell.
Maybe then, some portion of Jansenist error is an unforced error of overcorrection beyond what's expected of us.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=73923.msg936366#msg936366)
Quote from: Pax Vobis (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=73923.msg936366#msg936366) 5/11/2024, 10:40:12 AM
God is not a sadist.
-
... Natural virtue in the Thomistic definition is not at all the same as "natural virtue" in Rousseau's wicked fables. The latter has tainted Catholic understanding since before V2. Without the properly entrenched mental training in pre-"Enlightenment" theology, the humanist virus will work its confusion leading to (among other things) sentiment-driven distortions of Limbo, Heaven, and Hell.
Maybe then, some portion of Jansenist error is an unforced error of overcorrection beyond what's expected of us.
Great points.
-
It’s false, and one of the condemned Jansenist propositions, that there can be no natural virtue without supernatural grace. There absolutely can be and is. Common sense alone tells us there is and we see the difference all around us. Of course such virtue does not have supernatural merit, but you’re absolutely failing to distinguish between the natural and supernatural, something which St. Thomas did masterfully.
Failing to understand Catholic theology has led to some Jansenism among Trads here.
As I said: (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/catholic-church-buries-limbo-after-centuries/msg936283/#msg936283)
"Well, for me it's a mute point because of original sin, wherein man enters this world and lives their whole life inclined to evil (whether baptized or not), negating any hope of "naturally-virtuous" - which is the heresy of Naturalism, even if in some ways they may come across to us as being so. I do not believe an adult outside of the Church can live his life naturally virtuous, impossible."
Perhaps I should have used the term "efficaciously virtuous" instead of naturally virtuous, which will never send anyone unbaptized to Limbo nor save them from hell.
But of course unbaptized adults can be and many times are in fact "naturally virtuous," they help little old ladies across the street, feed the poor and give to charities etc., but they cannot please God without the faith - this is Scripture - Heb. 11:6.
Nor can adults live life without sinning and as such will end up in hell with or without baptism and without the faith. Terrible? Yes, extremely, but it's not complicated even if it is hard to swallow. The EENS dogma means that there is no hope whatsoever for those who die outside of the Church.
As Fr. Wathen put it: "If this seems to you overly severe, I remind you, it truly *is* severe..." - (I try to remember to remind myself of this somewhat often).
-
No, Fr Wathen talking about the errors of Naturalism is not a condemnation of Limbo.
Yes. Which is the heresy I posted about.
An unbaptized person can have sorrow for sins (it is still a gift of grace), as even Trent says this is a requirement for an adult receiving baptism. Sanctifying graces can only be had in the Church but actual graces are available to every human being born.
Yes, as was already said - they are available to those who accept them.
A natural sorrow for sin (without baptism) would lead to Limbo. God is not a sadist. Some people aren’t saved but also not damned.
Agreed. If it it were possible for an adult to die with only Original sin on his soul, if such a person ever existed or will ever exist, then yes, if he died in that state would spend eternity in Limbo. My position is such a scenario is an impossibility.
I believe that if that were the case and there was such a person, God would eagerly provide the sacrament and the means for him dying within the bosom of Holy Mother the Church so he that would spend his eternity together with God in heaven, not hell, not Limbo.
-
Perhaps I should have used the term "efficaciously virtuous" instead of naturally virtuous, which will never send anyone unbaptized to Limbo nor save them from hell.
You're still conflating the natural and the supernatural. No, natural virtue is not efficacious for salvation, but Limbo is not salvation, merely an absence of any punishment or suffering. There is no "efficacious virtue" in infants either, but they could be in Limbo (if you believe in it) due to an absence of punishment. You speak of Limbo as if it were some kind of "reward". It's not. You don't "earn" Limbo due to your natural virtue. It's merely the absence of punishment. This is where I hold, for instance, that a martyr who dies unbaptized would go to Limbo, since the martyrdom would remove all punishment due to sin (just as a martyr who has been baptized removes the punishment due to sin that would otherwise await him in Purgatory, and thus go straight to Heaven). St. Ambrose spoke of unbaptized martyrs being "washed but not crowned," and he speculated that someone like Valentinian might end up in a similar state, having had the punishment due to sin washed from him similar to a martyr.
-
Agreed. If it it were possible for an adult to die with only Original sin on his soul, if such a person ever existed or will ever exist, then yes, if he died in that state would spend eternity in Limbo. My position is such a scenario is an impossibility.
I believe that if that were the case and there was such a person, God would eagerly provide the sacrament and the means for him dying within the bosom of Holy Mother the Church so he that would spend his eternity together with God in heaven, not hell, not Limbo.
On one hand, there are stories of North American Martyrs who rushed to baptize as many as possible while under attack by enemy tribes. (Not sure whether I read it here on CI or on some other site.) Those priests would seem to have held to a strict EENS position, particularly as to the extra Ecclesia catchment.
On the other hand, there likely were ex-pagan catechumens whose priest-catechists got tomahawked or scimitar'd a few seconds before or after they too suffered the same, and not long before their own planned Baptisms at that. Is it sentimental error to construct various extraordinary paths out of this, for example the conjectured intervention of angel-baptists? Conversely (and aside from Limbo), does not Hell have many levels including the mildest stratum for such cases?
I don't know. I do pray for the souls of martyrs in Purgatory, not because I explicitly deny or adhere to BoB in every possibility, but because prayers will get allocated as Divine Providence decides is fitting.
-
You're still conflating the natural and the supernatural. No, natural virtue is not efficacious for salvation, but Limbo is not salvation, merely an absence of any punishment or suffering. There is no "efficacious virtue" in infants either, but they could be in Limbo (if you believe in it) due to an absence of punishment. You speak of Limbo as if it were some kind of "reward". It's not. You don't "earn" Limbo due to your natural virtue. It's merely the absence of punishment. This is where I hold, for instance, that a martyr who dies unbaptized would go to Limbo, since the martyrdom would remove all punishment due to sin (just as a martyr who has been baptized removes the punishment due to sin that would otherwise await him in Purgatory, and thus go straight to Heaven). St. Ambrose spoke of unbaptized martyrs being "washed but not crowned," and he speculated that someone like Valentinian might end up in a similar state, having had the punishment due to sin washed from him similar to a martyr.
My idea of Limbo is that after all the OT saints were released, is now a place for unbaptized infants, I do not believe there are any adults whatsoever in Limbo - I could be wrong but that's my opinion.
The infants will never see God or know eternal bliss, but otherwise do not suffer pains of the senses because they did not commit any actual sins. I picture the place itself as a big empty space, not cold or not, but lit plenty bright enough so the infants do not suffer darkness, and so on.
I believe that God would never let any "virtuous" unbaptized adult die without the means of salvation who had the will and wanted to be saved and had whatever virtue you want to call it, but lacked the means for salvation. No way. God would do everything that needed to be done for that adult to provide the means of salvation for that adult so that he would spend his eternity in heaven, not Limbo, not hell.
-
Nor can adults live life without sinning and as such will end up in hell
Limbo is part of hell, so…
The question is, can an unbaptized adult, repent (in a natural way) for his sins? I believe yes. Therefore, he could die with only Original Sin in his soul. And he would not be saved but could go to a “lesser punishment” (ie Limbo).
-
I hold to the strict Augustinian position, namely, that the unbaptised who die unsullied by personal sin still go to the hell of the demons. BUT, in keeping with the voice of the Magisterium, I do not exclude the possibility of a natural paradise for these souls, a place apart from heaven but not the hell of the reprobate. Nevertheless, this is not to be found in the Deposit of Faith. So, whilst I do not exclude the possibility of Limbo infantorum, I find it to be highly improbable and, therefore, the souls go to hell with the demons.
But what I hold does not matter except to me gor my own salvation. What matters is a full, nuanced explanation of what the Church teaches and what she tolerates.