Florence And Hell For Infants

[Guest]

lol

[Perigrina]

Maybe they'd have a set number of new regenerations, something like Dr Who :smile4:

 

Be careful what you say about the Doctor.  There are Whovians present.. :alien:

[Perigrina]

I agree with your first point. What has been revealed? To me it's a God who is with us always, loving, healing, just and patient. A God who revealed his love for us through his own sacrifice. I agree that we can stumble and downplay the role of justice or correct being as conscious adults. But I hold our position, as persons able to make choices and mistakes (as well as reparation), in a different regard to a baby who cannot corrupt in the same way. Just to point out though that I view the limbo/hell position as vile and horrid, not any individual personally. My view is that a key theology dominated western Christianity and the limbo issue grew as a negative impact of that wholesale application, contrary to other opinions. It could have went a different way, but it didn't. If anyone wants to defend that theological trend I'd be glad to hear their points.

 

The idea of limbo is not horrid and vile.  Nor is it a denial of the love and mercy of God.  We need to be able to overcome our chronological myopia and see past the assumptions of our own time and place.

 

Our ancestors in the Faith have earned our respect and our best efforts to understand where they were coming from.  They preserved the Faith and handed it on so that it eventually reached us.  They amassed a treasure of theology, philosophy, music, art, architecture, and literature for us, their heirs.  They have left us the richest legacy imaginable although we are too often unappreciative of it.

 

It takes some work to go beyond the attitudes which the so-called "Enlightenment" has imposed on us, in order to be able to value the contributions our ancestors.  Nevertheless, they deserve that we should do so.
 

[Benedictus]

The idea of limbo is not horrid and vile.  Nor is it a denial of the love and mercy of God.  We need to be able to overcome our chronological myopia and see past the assumptions of our own time and place.

 

Our ancestors in the Faith have earned our respect and our best efforts to understand where they were coming from.  They preserved the Faith and handed it on so that it eventually reached us.  They amassed a treasure of theology, philosophy, music, art, architecture, and literature for us, their heirs.  They have left us the richest legacy imaginable although we are too often unappreciative of it.

 

It takes some work to go beyond the attitudes which the so-called "Enlightenment" has imposed on us, in order to be able to value the contributions our ancestors.  Nevertheless, they deserve that we should do so.
 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on your first paragraph. Disagreeing with one aspect of theology, or any specific negative actions of the Catholic church in history, doesn't negate everything else. Sure, of course there are good things to celebrate and affirm. But most Catholics of the past were not educated in theology (if academically at all) and they didn't read the bible until fairly late in the big scheme of things. The sway of thinking was directed by leading theologians, scholars and priests. The people, by and large, accepted what they were taught as a given  -  but things have changed, at least in the developed world. Most people are far more educated, or at least more able to find out information that wasn't easily available to them in the past. They will therefore ask questions and expect reasonable answers. That's one of the major tasks, and challenges, of the church for this century.  You don't seem to want to comment on why this limbo idea become popular in church history so we probably won't make much progress. I don't think my objections to the theology have anything to do with the enlightenment personally. I'd say I'm more inclined to see the historical reasons why things gained ground and to be informed by the views of those predating St. Augustine. His views are at odds with Orthodox Christianity and Judaism on original sin. This was only taken up wholesale with Augustine. The Catholic church should be able to explain why they accepted a theology that ultimately took a different view to those held by Jews and other early Christians. Those Catholics, and others, who do explore this, from what I've read, are the ones who reject this theological idea. Maybe someone has read something good on this to post here.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Benedictus

[Perigrina]

We'll have to agree to disagree on your first paragraph. Disagreeing with one aspect of theology, or any specific negative actions of the Catholic church in history, doesn't negate everything else. Sure, of course there are good things to celebrate and affirm. But most Catholics of the past were not educated in theology (if academically at all) and they didn't read the bible until fairly late in the big scheme of things. The sway of thinking was directed by leading theologians, scholars and priests. The people, by and large, accepted what they were taught as a given  -  but things have changed, at least in the developed world. Most people are far more educated, or at least more able to find out information that wasn't easily available to them in the past. They will therefore ask questions and expect reasonable answers. That's one of the major tasks, and challenges, of the church for this century.  You don't seem to want to comment on why this limbo idea become popular in church history so we probably won't make much progress. I don't think my objections to the theology have anything to do with the enlightenment personally. I'd say I'm more inclined to see the historical reasons why things gained ground and to be informed by the views of those predating St. Augustine. His views are at odds with Orthodox Christianity and Judaism on original sin. This was only taken up wholesale with Augustine. The Catholic church should be able to explain why they accepted a theology that ultimately took a different view to those held by Jews and other early Christians. Apart from saying it's the more correct view the church doesn't seem to outline the case bit by bit in a compartive fashion. Those that do, from what I've read, are the ones who reject this theological idea. Maybe someone has read something good on this to post here.

 

The sort of negative view that you express about the Middle Ages is exactly the view promoted by the "Enlightenment".  They were all about how superior and better educated they were and put down the people of this period to justify themselves, especially their characteristic questioning of authority. While there may not have been a high literacy rate during the Middle Ages, the people were not stupid or ignorant.  And their faith was something we could all learn from.  I have an above average amount of theological education and I would trade it for the faith of a medieval peasant.

 

It was a time when virtually everyone had a hierarchical view of the world.  People did not feel oppressed by this.  There is a certain stability and security in knowing your place in the world and what is expected of you.  Everyone had the rights and responsibilities of his station.

 

It was foreign to their way of thinking to question St. Augustine.  He was an authority on doctrine and questioning his views on original sin just was not an option.  In order to reconcile this view with our belief in a loving God, the idea of limbo was developed.

 

Our modern propensity for questioning authority does not make us superior to these people.  The majority of modern people have a superficial understanding of most subjects and yet have no qualms about setting their opinions and feelings above any other authority.  As a culture we are remarkably foolish in this regard and try to convince ourselves otherwise by making up stories about the stupidity of the people of the past for accepting authority.  As far as I can tell, we are the stupid ones.

 

[Eliakim]

Dairygirl, are you still here? 

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes i am still here.

it seems the thread has gone off on tangent so i dont see much point continuing.

 

but, as to a couple points. i would think that council and even that part of the council about original sin was infallible, cause it was in a line of "we define..." and right after it, it said "we also define...". as ive mentioned earlier.

 

and as ive mentioned earlier, while it may be said that the teaching may have meant something other than hell for unbaptized babies, i see no other explanation that would suffice for what they meant. if you have original sin alone, you go to hell. that would mean babies, as all others have other sins.

[Benedictus]

The sort of negative view that you express about the Middle Ages is exactly the view promoted by the "Enlightenment".  They were all about how superior and better educated they were and put down the people of this period to justify themselves, especially their characteristic questioning of authority. While there may not have been a high literacy rate during the Middle Ages, the people were not stupid or ignorant.  And their faith was something we could all learn from.  I have an above average amount of theological education and I would trade it for the faith of a medieval peasant.

 

It was a time when virtually everyone had a hierarchical view of the world.  People did not feel oppressed by this.  There is a certain stability and security in knowing your place in the world and what is expected of you.  Everyone had the rights and responsibilities of his station.

 

It was foreign to their way of thinking to question St. Augustine.  He was an authority on doctrine and questioning his views on original sin just was not an option.  In order to reconcile this view with our belief in a loving God, the idea of limbo was developed.

 

Our modern propensity for questioning authority does not make us superior to these people.  The majority of modern people have a superficial understanding of most subjects and yet have no qualms about setting their opinions and feelings above any other authority.  As a culture we are remarkably foolish in this regard and try to convince ourselves otherwise by making up stories about the stupidity of the people of the past for accepting authority.  As far as I can tell, we are the stupid ones.

 

 

Well, I'll leave the going in circles there rather than pick over this. I don't see my view changing on this and some people here don't seem to see how limbo is reliant, no caused, by Augustines theology. You'll be glad to know I'll be entering a monastery, although with a parish and school, but I won't ever become Pope :cool:
 

Edited May 20, 2014 by Benedictus

[Anastasia13]

This thread title makes me want eggs florentine.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Credo in Deum]

Great you said eggs.  Now I want a sasuage and egg McMuffin.

 

[Eliakim]

Daisygirl,

 

What about the idea if the group of people listed in Florence's Cantate Dominio as damned (Jews, heretics, schismatics etc...) would have been understood at the time by all familiar with scholastic subtleties (which they likely were since Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas' works were popular) to mean only if a Jew/heretic/schismatic persistently with full knowledge and intent rejected Christ? 

 

Again I'm pickin up what you're puttin down chica.  I sympathize with you.  But what do you think of that? 

 

Also I tried sending you some links that explain this more and other stuff I know you would enjoy but your PM isn't working...try cleaning out your inbox and perhaps PM me?

 

Ciao,

E