Father Isaac Mary Relyea

[dUSt]

That is Pat Robertson nonsense and comes from the days when people had no explanation for the weather other than that it was the Angels bowling in heaven etc.

 

​Wait. Are you saying that thunder is not angels bowling in heaven? I literally can't even!

[PhuturePriest]

I started with the prelude and it didn't sound to scary to me (and I scare easily lol). I haven't listened to part 1 so maybe that's where it gets scary or Calvinistic or something. Anyways, my main concern was 10 minutes into the Prelude. He says- and I'm almost exactly quoting here- that anyone who says that Muslims worship the same God [as Catholics] is a heretic [is heresy]. I agree it's a very perverted (as in wrong) religion and there are so many things wrong with it, but according to the Catechism...

That's probably the only thing they have correct, and according to the Church not a heretic for saying so. But according to him I am. Hum.

 

Another thing I think could be understood differently/is wrong is the Typhoon "example."  A bit before the Muslim/heretic thing he talks about how Indonesia was leveled by a Typhoon, and it was God's punishment for all the terrible things happening in that country (mainly the sex trade on children). I see it differently- I think Satan is the source of all destruction and the source of that Typhoon. Satan was able to "get his way" with the country due to the terrible things going on there, which is where I agree with Fr. However, I don't think God was the direct cause of the Typhoon- I don't think God wanted the Typhoon to happen. Many young children and innocents perished in the Typhoon. Was that what God wanted? No, that was what Satan wanted, and as soon as he got his way (when the people turned to him) he went for it and sent the Typhoon. And God uses the Typhoon as an opportunity to get people to repent and turn to Him (if they will).

 

That's also what I think goes on in the Old Testament destructions- it's not that God sent it as much as they turned from God, to satan, and satan was able to have his way to kill and destroy because, really, that's all he wants. In the OT such events are recorded as being sent by God or angels because that is how it would seem to people living at that time as they didn't quite understand the person of satan or the nature of God yet. Anyways, it's not a Catechism question and I think his view is valid and can be held, I just don't agree with him so I'm putting out my 2 cents. My main beef is with the Muslim/heretic thing. I'll respectfully disagree and stick with the Church on that.

​The Catechism doesn't state that they worship the same God, it says they profess to worship the same God. Very different. Also, the Catechism is not infallible. It can in theory be wrong. Many people cite issues in the Baltimore Catechism, for instance.

[Maggyie]

​The Catechism doesn't state that they worship the same God, it says they profess to worship the same God. Very different. Also, the Catechism is not infallible. It can in theory be wrong. Many people cite issues in the Baltimore Catechism, for instance.

Errrrr.... It says "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day." 

How do you spin that?

The number of reputable Catholic theologians who accept the theory of limbo is minuscule. Key word: reputable. Non crank. Not heliocentric. That's why the Vatican addressed it. Because some of the public (wrongly) was under the impression that Limbo was part of mainstream orthodox Catholic teaching. In fact it a theological musing. It does not hold any more weight for being an old-timey theological thought experiment. No serious academic believes that babies get trapped in Limbo. 

[Nunsense]

 

 

VATICAN LETTER Dec-2-2005 (840 words) Backgrounder. xxxi

Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- An international group of Vatican-appointed theologians is about to recommend that the Catholic Church close the doors of limbo forever.

Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo -- the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of "natural happiness" but not in the presence of God -- was part of Catholic tradition.

Instead, it was a hypothesis -- a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God's mercy.

Like hypotheses in any branch of science, a theological hypothesis can be proven wrong or be set aside when it is clear it does not help explain Catholic faith.

. . .

Redemptorist Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the commission, told Catholic News Service "the limbo hypothesis was the common teaching of the church until the 1950s. In the past 50 years, it was just quietly dropped.

"We all smiled a bit when we were presented with this question, but then we saw how many important questions it opened," including questions about the power of God's love, the existence of original sin and the need for baptism, he said.

"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved" with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, "but we had to backtrack and do the theology," Father Kelly said.

A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.

Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.

In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.



. . .

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm 
 

[Ark]

Errrrr.... It says "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day." 

How do you spin that?

The number of reputable Catholic theologians who accept the theory of limbo is minuscule. Key word: reputable. Non crank. Not heliocentric. That's why the Vatican addressed it. Because some of the public (wrongly) was under the impression that Limbo was part of mainstream orthodox Catholic teaching. In fact it a theological musing. It does not hold any more weight for being an old-timey theological thought experiment. No serious academic believes that babies get trapped in Limbo. 

Who are these reputable theologians you refer to as there is a consensus among Fathers and scholastic theologians on this matter. The prudent perspective is that that the modern theologians are in error. 

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2006/05/disputed-question-on-limbo-positive.html

 

[PhuturePriest]

Errrrr.... It says "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day." 

How do you spin that?

The number of reputable Catholic theologians who accept the theory of limbo is minuscule. Key word: reputable. Non crank. Not heliocentric. That's why the Vatican addressed it. Because some of the public (wrongly) was under the impression that Limbo was part of mainstream orthodox Catholic teaching. In fact it a theological musing. It does not hold any more weight for being an old-timey theological thought experiment. No serious academic believes that babies get trapped in Limbo. 

​I say yet again: The Catechism is not infallible. It has never claimed to be. There can, in theory, be error within it.

Good to hear such a proclamation from a non-theologian academic. I don't know what theological academia would do without people such as yourself declaring what it is "serious" academic theologians believe and don't believe.

[Ark]

​The Catechism doesn't state that they worship the same God, it says they profess to worship the same God. Very different. Also, the Catechism is not infallible. It can in theory be wrong. Many people cite issues in the Baltimore Catechism, for instance.

​The modern catechism is dangerously ambiguous at best, for this reason it's best to avoid. 

[PhuturePriest]

​The modern catechism is dangerously ambiguous at best, for this reason it's best to avoid. 

​I have no issue with the Catechism. I do have an issue with people who think something is true just because it's in the Catechism when that thing is not doctrinally defined. A passage in the Catechism is only as infallible as the Doctrine to which it refers to. If it is not referring to a Doctrine, it is not infallible. Pure and simple.

[Nihil Obstat]

Errrrr.... It says "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day." 

How do you spin that?

The number of reputable Catholic theologians who accept the theory of limbo is minuscule. Key word: reputable. Non crank. Not heliocentric. That's why the Vatican addressed it. Because some of the public (wrongly) was under the impression that Limbo was part of mainstream orthodox Catholic teaching. In fact it a theological musing. It does not hold any more weight for being an old-timey theological thought experiment. No serious academic believes that babies get trapped in Limbo. 

​Would we rather call this "poisoning the well", or "no true Scotsman"?

[PhuturePriest]

​Would we rather call this "poisoning the well", or "no true Scotsman"?

​Somehow, it is a mixture of both. Quite impressive, really.

[Maggyie]

Sigh. FP if you attend seminary they will explain to you about limbo. It's not taught in the mainstream any more. It's just not. Why don't you contact a diocesan seminarian you know and ask him what he's learned about unbaptized infants and Limbo. 

It it may be helpful for you to research about how this doctrine has developed over time. Read the whole document Nihil linked to. It's a great explanation of how the teaching has evolved and why the Church no longer teaches Limbo.

For instance Augustine believed unbaptized babies were damned and Gregory the Great said the babies suffer eternal torment in Hell. Later in the Middle Ages this teaching was modified, and it was understood that while unbaptized babies couldn't be saved, they would experience less pain than adults or would even have natural pleasure (hence limbo). 

doctrine has developed further and now we understand that the church simply commits these children to the mercy of God, and there may be a way for them to be saved. This doesn't mean baptism is not important. Just that Limbo is not really the best way of solving the "problem" theologically, in light of what the Church now understands about the mercy of God. Of course we don't know individual baby's final destinations (although the Holy Innocents are celebrated as martyrs and they were unbaptized). 

 

[Maggyie]

 

 

Redemptorist Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the commission, told Catholic News Service "the limbo hypothesis was the common teaching of the church until the 1950s. In the past 50 years, it was just quietly dropped.

"We all smiled a bit when we were presented with this question, but then we saw how many important questions it opened," including questions about the power of God's love, the existence of original sin and the need for baptism, he said.

"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved" with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, "but we had to backtrack and do the theology," Father Kelly said.

A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.

Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.

In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.



. . .

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm 
 

Ark, FP, please read the above. The eminent theologians who think Limbo belongs in the trash bin include members of the above Vatican appointed International Theological Commission AND Joseph Ratzinger.

don't get me wrong, we are technically "allowed" to believe in Limbo... It doesn't make one a bad Catholic to believe it, just an uneducated one. 

Ps thanks nunsense!

[PhuturePriest]

Sigh. FP if you attend seminary they will explain to you about limbo. It's not taught in the mainstream any more. It's just not. Why don't you contact a diocesan seminarian you know and ask him what he's learned about unbaptized infants and Limbo. 

It it may be helpful for you to research about how this doctrine has developed over time. Read the whole document Nihil linked to. It's a great explanation of how the teaching has evolved and why the Church no longer teaches Limbo.

For instance Augustine believed unbaptized babies were damned and Gregory the Great said the babies suffer eternal torment in Hell. Later in the Middle Ages this teaching was modified, and it was understood that while unbaptized babies couldn't be saved, they would experience less pain than adults or would even have natural pleasure (hence limbo). 

doctrine has developed further and now we understand that the church simply commits these children to the mercy of God, and there may be a way for them to be saved. This doesn't mean baptism is not important. Just that Limbo is not really the best way of solving the "problem" theologically, in light of what the Church now understands about the mercy of God. Of course we don't know individual baby's final destinations (although the Holy Innocents are celebrated as martyrs and they were unbaptized). 

 

​Who said I believe in limbo? I don't. I agree with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict on the matter.

[Maggyie]

​Who said I believe in limbo? I don't. I agree with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict on the matter.

So. You agree with me that the theory of Limbo has been discredited and pretty much zero serious academic theologians agree with the theory? Including ag the highest levels of the church? Because from your snotty replies it didn't appear you are aware of the overwhelming scholarly consensus on this question. 

[PhuturePriest]

So. You agree with me that the theory of Limbo has been discredited and pretty much zero serious academic theologians agree with the theory? Including ag the highest levels of the church? Because from your snotty replies it didn't appear you are aware of the overwhelming scholarly consensus on this question. 

​I was aware that limbo was merely considered a theological possibility, and that most didn't believe in it. I was replying to the snottiness of your posts, ironically enough. "No real theologian would ever believe in limbo." It's a logical fallacy. I hate logical fallacies, and so I called you out on it.

[Maggyie]

​I was aware that limbo was merely considered a theological possibility, and that most didn't believe in it. I was replying to the snottiness of your posts, ironically enough. "No real theologian would ever believe in limbo." It's a logical fallacy. I hate logical fallacies, and so I called you out on it.

Uhhhhhm. What I said was "No serious academic believes that babies get trapped in Limbo." And " The number of reputable Catholic theologians who accept the theory of limbo is minuscule." Not only is this not a logical fallacy. It's the truth. As you go further in philosophy studies you'll understand better how logical fallacies can be applied. Here you've made the common error of focusing on the wrong part of the statement to try to apply the fallacy. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Every time I look at this thread title, I keep thinking it says "Father Isaac Mary R'lyeh" instead of "Relyea." O_o

Carry on. 

 

[Ark]

Persons that die with original sin are deprived of the Beatific vision (de fide). 

< Shrugs >

[Maggyie]

Persons that die with original sin are deprived of the Beatific vision (de fide). 

< Shrugs >

Right. And we don't know for sure that anyone in particular died in original sin. Baptism is essential for salvation, but that is a rule that binds us. It does not bind God.  

[Maggyie]

Anyway my point is that Fr Isaac seems to have a damaging theological perspective. You usually see these thoughts (natural disasters, AIDs, cancer, etc are punishments from the wrath of God) amongst Protestant fundamentalists. If you ever read the theology of the Westboro Bsptists, that's their whole thing. 

I'm willing to bet Fr preaches mostly to the already converted and makes few new Christians. The pagans do not find a fear-based relationship with the almighty attractive.