Okay.

Beng, I get told a lot on these boards that this is the problem with Protestantism--that we all feel like we are our own popes, etc. How are you not doing exactly the same thing that you accuse (or would accuse) me of?

Why do you point the finger at me when you could as well point the finger at Obi?

Now, to answer your question, to say that we Catholic have a single unified mind with no difference whatsoever is incorrect. In fact Obi likes to make this point all the time.

The fact that we have councils where opposing views are discussed and settled are a testament of that. There's also the contradictory systems of grace (Thomist, Molinist, Congruist, Agustinian etc) which are still allowed by the Church.

Now, what makes us different than Protestantism is that we have the magisterium with the authority to settle disputes. Especially when a dispute threatened the live of the Church (meaning, a simple dispute like what you see here is hardly the stuff that would make the Pope summon a council).



Now, let's get back to the limbo:

1. What Benedict XVI said is not even authentic magisterium. In fact he called the theological commission to work on the issue of salvation of infant which that he also sought answers to which he's not certain.

2. Knowing the original intention of BXVI of setting the commission (ie. answering where unbaptized babies would go when they die), the work of the commission is somewhat a failure. It doesn't provide the answer it was asked to provide.

3. In point 5 of the Theological Commission report, they argued against Limbo by referencing the Holy Innocents. It is curious why they did not point out that the Holy Innocents were saints of the Old Testament before the institution of baptism.

4. As chronologically outline in the commission report itself one sees a chain of tradition from the fathers until even Vatican II of the teaching of Limbo. Teaching from Popes and theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas (have I mentioned him?).

5. On the other hand there's no magisterial teachings whatsoever (traditional or not) attesting that unbaptized babies goes to heaven. The best the Theological Commission could say that we HOPE that they go to heaven AFTER receiving baptismal grace in a mysterious way. It follows that if so happen that an unbaptized babies DOES NOT receive baptismal grace in a mysterious way (and grace is a free gift), they can't go to heaven. And there's only two final destinations for souls, heaven or hell.

6. The existence of a place in hell where there's only natural happiness and no punishment is certain. The saints of the Old Testaments were there before Christ opened heaven's door for them. And since the gift of immortality to Adam was beyond his nature, it follows that in the state of pure nature human would die while the soul, which is immortal, would go to hell to experience natural happiness (since in the state of pure nature they don't have sanctifying grace needed to enters heaven).

7. We, I, hope that all infants could go to heaven. But in that hope we must also hope that they receive baptismal grace, for if we said that they could go to heaven without baptismal grace, we become a heretic. And if they do depart in this life without baptismal grace, it is de fide (yes it is) that they'll be going to hell.

So, the dispute should not be about whether infants who died without baptismal grace would go to hell or heaven (because it's de fide that ANY person departing this world without baptismal grace is going to hell). The dispute should be whether infant who died without water baptism could receive baptism of desire or baptism of blood so they could enter heaven.

PS
To receive baptism of desire one needs to have reason. Since infant doesn't have reason God needs to supply them with it if they were going to be baptized by desire. To receive baptism of blood the infants must die a martyr death, that is dying in testament of faith.

He would say that he is better qualified to understanding the magisterium than are you (a fact I'd be inclined to agree with), and the Pope better than both of you. With that said, all you are doing is proving my general point. But I'll expand on that below.


Except the fact that both of you are disagreeing on what your magisterium teaches. That is, you are interpreting the magisterium differently. Protestants can say that they have a magisterium: the words of the 66 books we accept as Scripture. Those are our canons, creeds, councils, etc. Yes, we interpret them differently, but here you and Obi are interpreting your own magisterium differently.

As I've said before, the problem with the Catholic claim for the need of the magisterium is that, on either count, it is the individual who must interpret what he is being told, and that to the best of his ability. In your case, you claim to be under the authority of, say, the Pope. Except when he disagrees with you. Then you just claim that he isn't speaking for the magisterium. And then you interpret the actual words of the magisterium differently than, say, the Pope (or Obi, etc.).


Frankly, I couldn't care less about limbo, since I don't believe any of it. I just think it's interesting that you think you know Catholicism better than professional theologians, popes, etc. And it seems to me that you clearly over-interpreted the previous citations you provided me.

In any case, all I'll say more about this is this: it seems to me (an uneducated non-Catholic) that your final analysis is what the debate ought to be about (namely, how infants can receive baptismal grace). However, it also seems to me that you are binding God by the sacraments, when I am under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the sacraments are means by which God administers that grace. In that case, He isn't bound to them. They may be the normal way He administers grace. In refusing them, you may cut yourself off from His grace. But to say that they are the only instruments God can use to administer His grace seems to me just absurd. In any case, though, while I agree this should be the debate (how infants can receive grace), that's not your original claim. You originally said that Catholicism teaches that unbaptized babies go to Hell, and later added that when they do they suffer by fire. So at a minimum it appears that you have changed your argument.


See my comments above on your restricting God.

Anyway, you can have any last word you like on limbo. You provided documentation, and I see where you got your ideas. I see professional theologians, popes, and people on this board disagreeing with you and telling you that your interpretation is wrong. The fact that you are so certain you are right when the Pope himself is so uncertain that he felt the need to call a commission tells me something important about your view of yourself and your understanding of your own faith (maybe the Pope should have just called beng for the answer! You could have set him straight!) .Frankly, I couldn't care less what your interpretation of Catholicism is. I started this thread to get some answers on official Catholic doctrine, not beng's understanding of official Catholic doctrine. And while, yes, Obi's interpretation is just an interpretation, I'm far more likely to accept his views than yours (and BXVI's than Obi's, etc.).

I'm more inclined to accept B XVI's opinions than my own, too.

Is that your opinion or his? Can I get some documentation, please?

I checked every verse on KJV with the word "heaven." It's true that there's no verse that says "heaven is your reward" (just as there's no verse where Jesus said "I am God" or "worship Me").

So, if you're acceptance of the doctrine that we could merit heaven is solely grounded on the existence of the phrase "heaven is your reward," then you would never accept the doctrine (the same goes for muslim who would only accept Jesus as God if Jesus actually said that "I am God" or "worship Me").



Pray tell, what kind of person dies with only original sin?

Keeping in mind that according to St. Thomas when a person could use his reason he would either justified (at which point there's no original sin or actual sin in him) or sin mortally (at which point there's original sin and mortal sin in him).



Because if they are "unbaptized" (meaning, they are not baptized by water, blood or desire) then they don't receive THE ONLY GRACE that could deliver them from hell.

If the phrase goes something like, "dead children go to hell," then it's incorrect. Because not every children who died do not receive baptismal grace (some may receive baptismal grace via water baptism, some via baptism of desire, some via baptism of blood).



No. That heretical synod is the one saying that unbaptized children in hell is punished with punishment of damnation AND punishment of fire. That particular proposition is condemned.



You've got to be kidding me.

I gave you the link to Ott's book showing where the citation comes from and the page number. Would you mind clicking them?

Plus, Obi's disagreement with me is about limbo, not about whether there are pure natural state. Obi would never disagree with me on this, because the existence of pure nature state is a definite teaching. At worst, it's Sent. Fidei Proxima.

That's not what I meant.

When you asked "I get told a lot on these boards that this is the problem with Protestantism--that we all feel like we are our own popes, etc. How is beng not doing exactly the same thing that he accuses (or would accuse) me of," this question is also appropriate for Obi. At the very least he disagrees with Pius VI and St. Thomas (did I mention that St. Thomas, the official and greatest doctor of the Church, taught Limbo of Children?) .



Well, of course!

Most disagreement is what the magisterium actually teaches. When opposing parties debate in an ecumenical council, each would not only cite bible, but fathers and previous magisterial teachings.

But again, the difference is that we have a living magisterium to settle biblical dispute, fathers dispute or magisterial teachings dispute. An application of Mat 18:17.



Probably because I got back up from theologians, pope, magisterial teachings and St. Thomas (I think I've mentioned him somewhere). While Obi's position has no support. The quotation from Benedict XVI does not support him because BXVI does not teach in an authentic magisterium manner (that's why BXVI formed the Theological Commission to provide an answer).



God is certainly not bound by sacrament. But He is bound by His word. And He makes baptism [water, desire, blood] the only means to initially justified man in the NT. Yes, He could devise some other way. But that would mean that He's going back on His word.

And no, I never said that unbaptized children suffer fire. That's the heretical proposition from the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.



How is that restricting God? I did say that God needs to supply the reason necessary. If anything I'm pointing out ways how God could still save the children while NOT going back on His word (which you've proposed).



You've got to be kidding.

Which Pope or traditional theologians (prior Vat II) taught that there's no Limbo? Even that Report from Theological Commission says otherwise (ie. that up until V2 the teaching is that unbaptized children go to limbo).

And BXVI did not teach that there's no Limbo in a definitive manner (that's why he formed the Theological Commission, which then failed to answer the question adequately).


Seriously, I've got solid ground for my case. St. Thomas, Popes, fathers, magisterial teachings. And my opponent got... the report from Theological Commission.

I found this on rorate-caeli

You will perhaps ask why God has left so many questions open to discussion. You might as well ask why God has not revealed everything.

Now God has revealed the principles in order to serve as foundations, He has not done exactly the same with the consequences, in order to give our liberty play, like a mother who holds her child up by leading strings, but is delighted to see him try and walk like a man. You must bear in mind too, that this infallibility may, at any moment, transfer ideas from the realm of opinion to that of dogma, and consequently from the free to the necessary order. A simple decision of the Church works this change, and she never withholds that decision from the human race in case of need.

Seated in the midst of minds, unchangeable like God, whose Spirit she has, the Church diffuses in a wonderful manner light and heat, drawing to herself every soul of good will, judging human ideas by the standard of divine ones, and welding together in admirable peace the very differences she allows to exist among her children. Their liberty gives her no uneasiness, for she knows on the one hand, the point at which she will check them, and on the other she is certain they will stop at her bidding. It is much the same kind of feeling as that of God about the ocean.

On the contrary, Protestant liberty recognises no bounds, and is destructive of all unity. ... He [the Protestant] is his own unity: in other words, his unity is something essentially variable, a cloud, a dew drop. His individuality itself does not constitute unity: he is alone without the possibility of being one; God is one without being able to be alone, and His Church in like manner.


Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
Letter to a young man
Solesmes, June 24, 1838

You need to study up on the history of the traditio instrumentum.

If that is directed at me then I'd say, "I know a bit. And it's apple and orange."

Beng, your arrogance and stubbornness are getting in the way of this discussion. Kindly butt out.

Edit after PM

Beng do you have any sources stating that this, 'limbo of the children,' is eternal?

I ask because generally there are understood to be four such places which one could describe as Limbo.

Gehanna, Sheol/Abrahams Bosom, Purgatory, Limbo of the infants.

Two of these we know of were/are temporal in preparation for heaven, one is eternal, but you are proposing one that is eternal but is in preparation for neither heaven or hell is that correct?

I'm just curious what the teaching is on such a place regarding the general judgement, if this Limbo is eternal what sort of body do those who are in it receive at the general judgement?

In seems consistent to me that any such place were it to exist only seems to be temporal, as is the case with two of them Sheol and Purgatory, they are temporal in preparation for heaven. Aquinas also teaches in the summa that those without water baptism but who have baptism of desire may have to undergo purgatory, he in no way bars them from heaven. Although as you stated previously infants have not reached the age of reason so the baptism by desire explanation is a problematic in such cases. Although it is not beyond the realm of possibility, and infact seems more likely that were such a place to exist, then those in it would have the use of reason if they were to enjoy the natural state of happiness that such a place is meant to bring.

I just saw this. I do apologise, sometimes I mean to get back to a topic, and before I know it I have forgotten it for weeks. That and I sometimes go a while without looking at the Apologetics subforum.

I am not sure where you guys are vis-a-vis the op. As far as Limbo goes, as an answer to the question "what is the final state of a soul that departs in original sin only" it is one of two possible options (well we might say there is more than one theory of limbo too, e.g. do they receive any joy, i.e. a natural happiness?) the other being that they suffer, but least of all in hell. Now whether any souls depart in such state is another matter and quite speculative. I am strongly inclined to say yes, but that is neither here nor there.

Nowhere, really. The whole thread got derailed, which I can't complain about. I helped derail it!

Definitely agree that there are two separate issues. The question of what happens to the soul of a person who dies in Original Sin but with no actual mortal sin is separate from whether there are any such souls. But I think the "no" answer to that question is much more speculative then the "yes" answer. Consider this -- if there are no such souls, then there is some ordinary (it is not extraordinary, since it is applied in all cases) means of baptism (or some extra-baptismal, but not extraordinary, way of removing Original Sin) that we don't know about from Revelation.