Posted on 01/18/2011 4:31:08 PM PST by stfassisi
“”It would have been more accurate to say Fr. Feeney taught that unbaptized babies go to Limbo,””
Feeny called Limbo part of hell as was in the excerpt I posted
Everybody knows that Limbo is technically part of Hell because it is not in Heaven. Fr. Feeney didn't make that up. However, Limbo is not Hell proper, as in "lake of fire." Therefore, your article was misleading.
I don't agree because God foreknew the child would be aborted by a free decision of the sinner from all eternity,thus, there was know future sins the aborted child would commit.
Being that a Catholic does not have to believe in Limbo,I don;t believe it to be part of hell or anything either
Correction- there was know future sins =should say NO future sins
Very true, but as an old friend used to say, that isn’t the way to bet.
Augustine had similar ideas (if I remember right).
LOL!
Traditionalist Catholics do not accept evolution. Nor does anybody with a scientific (small "s") mind. Unfortunately, we live in a time of mass apostasy and cultural genocide of the West.
In 1899, Pope Leo XIII promulgated an encyclical denouncing a heresy he called Americanism. This is not the same as secular Americanism, but deals specifically with the principle that "in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions."
This heresy was beaten back for a time, but combined with European variants and rebounded full-bloom in the 1960s. Since then, the minds of many Catholics have been clouded with liberalism to varying degrees. Even self-labeled conservative Catholics have found much of the "ancient severity" no longer palatable.
I wonder if you've ever been told to get out, or that you were "un-Catholic" just because you didn't go out of your way to make Genesis a collection of myths?
No liberal Catholic would dare call a knowledgeable person un-Catholic for opposing evolution. Apparently, Catholics play a prominent in the Intelligent Design movement. However, I have been called "integrist" or "on the tradjectory to schism" by liberalized "conservative" Catholics for adhering strictly to tradition. I now attend only the traditional Latin mass.
I would think that a Catholic looking down on "Bible believer" Creationism is simply indulging in class snobbery. Many college graduates imagine that belief in evolution will elevate them above the much disparaged backwoods rednecks. Evolution has never and will never become a dogma of the Faith.
Upon further research, it appears that the Church has not officially defined dogma on this issue. However, the vast majority of doctors believe that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.
“”However, the vast majority of doctors believe that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.””
It’s not there until Anslem,Mas. Even Blessed Augustine in De peccatorum meritis taught that infants punishments would be the mildest of all
Saint Ambrose Doctor of the church and other ECF’s said that only people mentally capable of committing sin would be damned to hell,thus meaning infants would be in heaven.
The real issue is about those who willfully reject Baptizing their children that have been presented that Baptism is Salvic,not the ignorant and the innocent children of abortion ,etc.. who are just like the Holy Innocents.
Correction..Anslem should say St. Anselm
It is pointless to discuss anything with such a mind, since they have no absolute truths. Their anchor is adrift. Until a hierarchy of truth is inbibed in such a person, it is pointless to discuss details.
What they are saying (my own opinion from reading it and knowing the dogmas) has to be read in the context of the paragraph. They are saying that if the person after he is baptized does not incur any guilt (any mortal sins) that they will go straight to Heaven. They are talking about a baptized person. The added explanation has to do with for example, a heretic or schismatic that is baptized, they are baptized, but because of the guilt of the mortal sins which they continue in, or you could say, re-start in after the baptism, they will not go straight to heaven, but to hell.
"The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God."
Your example is an erroneous personal opinion. My example s are what the Church has always taught infallible.
The dogmatically decreed fate of the unbaptized infants, eternal life in paradise without the beatific vision, is better than had that fetus been allowed to grow up and end up in Hell by his sinful life. God foreknew our every thought and our every reaction to even events that never occured in our lives, and He knew these from the beginning of time. In His mercy, He gives us infinitely more than we deserve. However, we should not go off the charts, and leave His revealed dogmas far behind, as you have.
You judge based on feelings only, You call me "radical fundametalist feenyite who condemns". The pope, his bishops, and the Vatican recognizes the mass centers of those you call "radical fundametalist feenyite", therefore, you are putting your own feelings above Rome's.
You presume to judge by your feelings, who are "humble loving people". Only God knows this.
If you "feel" a "darkness" in me, it is the result of my having posted all the dogmas, which clearly say what you attribute to me as darkness. Do you think the Church was in the "dark" ages prior to Vatican II's "Spingtime of the Church"?
You are inventing your own religion.
re: and not the ignorant and the innocent children of abortion ,etc.. who are just like the Holy Innocents.
The Holy Innocents did not go to Heaven when they died. They went to the same place as Adam and Eve and the Good Thief, all of which were not under the new covenant of baptism.
I'm tiring of your own personal religion. Start posting direct dogma and at least clear writings of a consensus of saints and doctors.
The dogmatically decreed state of the unbaptized is still the same whether limbo is in hell, or separate from it, or whether you want to call it paradise. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
What is important is that it has been dogmatically decreed that the unbaptized infant will be eternally deprived of the beatific vision. From the end of the link that Mas Cerveza gave in posting 49:
"Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes".
"Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes".
As you can see, my God is merciful. For like I said:
The dogmatically decreed fate of the unbaptized infants, eternal life in paradise without the beatific vision, is better than had that fetus been allowed to grow up and end up in Hell by his sinful life. God foreknew our every thought and our every reaction to even events that never occurred in our lives, and He knew these from the beginning of time. In His mercy, He gives us infinitely more than we deserve. However, we should not go off the charts, and leave His revealed dogmas far behind, as you have.
Concerning only the subject of the fate of the unbaptized infant, am I still in your eyes: "a radical fundamentalist feenyite who condemns humble loving people to hell and has no concern for nobody else. and has a strong darkness"?
“”I gave you the direct dogmas on the subject of the eternal fate of unbaptized infants.””
They obviously were not completely Defined since they were DEFINED in the DOGMATIC Constitution Lumen Gentium which expands on Salvation of the Invincibly Ignorant and through no fault of their own which would cover children since they did nothing by fault of their own as Lumen Gentium states
By rejecting Lumen Gentium you are not following Church teaching which is exactly what got Feeney in trouble!
From Lumen Gentium-DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
“”The dogmatically decreed fate of the unbaptized infants, eternal life in paradise without the beatific vision, is better than had that fetus been allowed to grow up and end up in Hell by his sinful life.””
Ridiculous!Try using an aborted baby with this in mind ... There was never going to be any future sins of the infant since God knew from all eternity that a sinful person was going to abort the child.
So,It was NOT better for the child to be aborted unless you somehow believe abortion is better than life because of potential future sins.
You’re going to paint yourself into a corner on this,ver!
"Obviously", only to you, who totally ignores or does not bother to research, or hear, the universal Church teaching of 2000 years. You are totally winging it here. It is defined dogma that the unbaptized child will not go to heaven. It is the NEVER contested consensus of the Fathers, Doctors, and Popes through the history of the Church. The only question the Fathers had, was if the infants suffered torments of hell or not.
re: They obviously were not completely Defined Since they were DEFINED in the DOGMATIC Constitution Lumen Gentium,.
Vatican II did not define any new dogmas. No document of Vatican II is dogmatic. The "Dogmatic Constitution" title, is just a title , what is defined is not dogmatically defined. It is as "Dogmatic" as Federal Express is Federal.
re: which expands on Salvation of the Invincibly Ignorant and through no fault of their own which would cover children since they did nothing by fault of their own as Lumen Gentium states
You are winging it completely.It is only your personal speculation that concludes "which would cover children since". It does not say anything about children.
I gave you the direct CLEAR dogmas (that's plural, many)which deal with unbaptized infants, and you deny them, and then use your own addition to a decree that does not speak anything about unbaptized infants.
There is a reason why I chose specifically chose infant baptism for the focus of our discussion on the writing of Fr. More. The reason is that there is constant agreement in all of tradition, the Fathers, doctors, councils, popes, and dogmas throughout the history of the Church that teaches that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven. The dogma is clear, the Fathers, doctors, councils, popes are in total agreement. I knew that if you deny this dogma, that there is no point in discussing any other point regarding EENS, you simply are not formed in the way of truth of the Catholic faith. Your faith is whatever your feelings tell you, it is your own. You are just a Protestant who goes to mass.
Therefore, there is no point in continuing our discussion, your religion and the Catholic faith of all time are not the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.