dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 i have read some popes who said that 'it's not that they'll be condemned for their ignorance, it's that they'll be condemned for..' etc etc. it is interesting to see two strong propenents of a 'strict' view of extra nulla, who also follow the current pope as infallible. i liked that tidbit on the saint who appeared to the indians, and told to wait for water baptism. wikipedia says that she's been unburied twice and shown incorrupt. i wont deny that the idea of a consistent catholic church brought back fond memories. you can count me as at best skeptical about the lack of contradiction, but all said, interesting indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) 'have the faith revealed to them'.... isn't that technically not a water baptism, though, and so, if one were to follow the 'more fundamentalist catholic' approach to this, not be sufficient for salvation? and what does 'some other act of God' mean? that's not water baptism......are you saying that it has to be something where they get taught and baptized, eg an angel baptizes or something monumental? maybe you do follow that nuance of some, who say 'baptism of desire' can mean at least if they desire actual water done properly? otherwise, what separates you from LD and the other 'modernist' catholics? Edited May 25, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I learned over time that when L_D has something to say, it benefits one to listen really really closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306288290' post='2245581'] L_D, I tried to hash out the orthodoxy of 'baptism of desire', but you seem to have given up. [/quote] You ppl will do fine without me. [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306288943' post='2245583'] it's strange that Fides wants to inject 'rigid' understandings into the to me obvious lenient understandings, and LD wants to inject 'lenient' into the obvious to me rigid... [/quote] Lol. I was only responding to the post I quoted. I see that immediately after that you posted something quite different. No worries. Btw, hopefully Aloysius posts soon. I agree with whatever he posts, ipso facto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306297288' post='2245629'] I learned over time that when L_D has something to say, it benefits one to listen really really closely. [/quote] lol yeah I figured that one out awhile ago too. I was hoping this would go somewhere because this is one of the few areas where I do disagree with L_D (for the moment). I would have been very interesting in hearing his reasoning of why Limbo is "horse croutons"... I do fully agree with and believe in baptism of desire and blood, and while I believe there may be a possibility that babies from Christian families who died before they were able to be baptized (although the intent to have them baptized is there) to attain baptism of desire based on the faith/intent of their parents, I am not as equally convinced yet that this baptism of desire is applicable in cases of non-Christian families where the parents had no intention of baptizing the baby had it survived. oh well perhaps another time. Edited May 25, 2011 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='goldenchild17' timestamp='1306311585' post='2245693'] lol yeah I figured that one out awhile ago too. I was hoping this would go somewhere because this is one of the few areas where I do disagree with L_D (for the moment). I would have been very interesting in hearing his reasoning of why Limbo is "horse croutons"... I do fully agree with and believe in baptism of desire and blood, and while I believe there may be a possibility that babies from Christian families who died before they were able to be baptized (although the intent to have them baptized is there) to attain baptism of desire based on the faith/intent of their parents, I am not as equally convinced yet that this baptism of desire is applicable in cases of non-Christian families where the parents had no intention of baptizing the baby had it survived. oh well perhaps another time. [/quote] I'll clarify the horse cr[s][/s]ap sentiment a bit since it is too wide open for interpretation. I completely reject the concept of limbo as hell. I think the Thomistic theory of limbo is more respectable but not convincing. I think if one is going to hold to limbo it ought to be recognized and put forth as a speculation and not asserted to be a revealed truth or official doctrine lest grieving parents be robbed of hope unnecessarily (and of course the Church does not put it forth as doctrine). If the sudden death of an infant before baptism is not an occasion for the salvific and gratuitous will of God to act according to extraordinary means then I don't know what is. God's goodness, grace and power are our hope and the limbo hypothesis is unnecessarily restrictive. Nobody mistake this post for an argument; I'm just stating my opinion to clarify where I'm coming from on the horse cr[s][/s]ap statement (btw, I mainly had "hell" limbo in mind when I chose those words). P.S. The only ppl I can think of atm (other than people in this thread) who question the baptism of desire doctrine are Feeneyites. I vaguely recall a debate between a Feeneyite and an SSPX guy on the issue. lol. edit: stinkin philters Edited May 25, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) fair enough and I apologize if it seemed like I was calling you out. I didn't intend to at all. I didn't really intend to post here at all, I was just echoing Nihil, and adding that I wished I could see this one like you did. I need to read more about the Thomistic idea of limbo (or really the Thomistic idea of pretty much anything tbh...) before I can really comment more but I'm not sure how one could really accept Limbo at all if it is not a part of the outside realm of hell, because as far as I know, in the end only heaven and hell will exist, so anything end everything must necessarily be contained within either one. I'm probably just too much of a follower of the ideas of Dante regarding stages of heaven and hell and corresponding punishments in the latter (not the exact punishments, as they were merely symbolic most likely, but the idea of different punishments for different types of people). Anyways, as you say, it isn't a doctrine (although I think it historically a far more respected and accepted an idea than is being made out to be here, and shouldn't be disregarded so easily) so I don't really have much of a position in this thread more than to say I was interested in hearing your case as I was surprised when I first heard you rejected it. Edited May 25, 2011 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306290815' post='2245594'] 'have the faith revealed to them'.... isn't that technically not a water baptism, though, and so, if one were to follow the 'more fundamentalist catholic' approach to this, not be sufficient for salvation? and what does 'some other act of God' mean? that's not water baptism......are you saying that it has to be something where they get taught and baptized, eg an angel baptizes or something monumental? maybe you do follow that nuance of some, who say 'baptism of desire' can mean at least if they desire actual water done properly? otherwise, what separates you from LD and the other 'modernist' catholics? [/quote] I would qualify that "having the faith revealed to them" would necessarily include (/culminate in) with sacramental Baptism. I do not subscribe to the theological opinion of "baptism of desire", nor am I obliged to hold it. So when I speak of some other act of God I intend that some miracle would take place (if required) to provide with sacramental Baptism... Ex. A saint bilocating, raising someone from the dead, etc. .. If you are sincerely interested in miraculous accounts there are a few mentioned in the book "Saints who Raised the Dead" by Fr. Hebert, and Joan Carroll Cruz's "Mysteries, Marvels, Miracles" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306308439' post='2245688'] Btw, hopefully Aloysius posts soon. I agree with whatever he posts, ipso facto. [/quote] Aloysius was the second reply... http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79951&view=findpost&p=1521827 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306345087' post='2245836'] Aloysius was the second reply... [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79951&view=findpost&p=1521827"]http://www.phatmass....dpost&p=1521827[/url] [/quote] to be fair that was three years ago He may have something different to say since then, although for the record I do agree with what he said then. I'm still a litte skeptical of the idea of achieving salvation after death so I am not sure of the idea of Limbo being a temporary state where the infants can choose their fate after death, although originally in the Limbo of the Fathers this is basically what happened I think. So I'm open to the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 the only problem for both Al and LD is that they both seem to be saying, in dismissing the idea that all infants go to hell, or that limbo is a higher version of hell etc.. 'what the popes really meant, was' or at least, 'the rule is X... but God is not limited to his rules' they both are defying the clear intention of the popes. 'infants go to hell' etc. Al specifrically even responded to the pope saying they go to hell. see below. [quote] Quote Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693) again, the current legitimate theory is that it is possible for the effects of baptism to be applied to the dying baby by an extra-ordinary act of God's mercy, so such a baby would not die in original sin alone.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 if ya think about it though. i might be more inclined to say, if i were want to reconcile all the statements of the popes, that the modernist catholic idea the 'lenient' idea is best. the reason... it's plausibel to say the genral rule is X, or that God is not limited to his rules. it's not so plausible to do the fancy footwork that Fiet et Ratio is doing in downplaying (read, dismissing) the 'lenient' sounding quotes. if there's a negative and a positive, it is always positive, ultimately, they say. of course, i'm one inclined to say that both sides are doing fancy footwork... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) also, it is peculiar, ill concede, the issues i see as contradictory, deal with salvation. salvation they always say is unwarranted, grace is almost by defition an exception to the rule. it might be possible to say 'god is not limited to his rules' even though the rules have all been laid out. add to that the fact that the only 'smoking gun' i purport to have is about exceptions to rules, abotu salvation, that does help bolster the idea tht the 'modernist' catholics as i call them, are correct. i've always felt this is one of the ebst arguments against my arguments. thoughts? Edited May 25, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I object to the idea that I "dismiss" what you term the more lenient quotes. I don't dismiss them, but I read them in light of the constant teaching of the Church. Overall, I think your main obstacle is that you paint everything with the same brush when not all Magisterial statements carry the same weight. Conciliar texts from Ecumenical Councils and infallible Papal pronouncements are weightier than other statements-- thus, some ideas have more "wiggle room" than others. Just because something is (for lack of a better phrase) 'less authoritative' than another doesn't mean we can dismiss it outright, but that we must read and understand it in light of dogma--not the other way around. And while it is true that God is not bound by His sacraments... WE are; and it would be an affront to Divine Providence and Omnipotence to suggest that there is someone for whom the reception of the sacrament of Baptism is "impossible". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debra Little Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1210206687' post='1521729'] many people here probably know one of my biggest beefs with the CC is the possible, and apparently probable, contradiction of, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. i have another beef that's been solidifying. i thought i'd get your thoughts on it before it solidifies too much. i have a hard time believing that limbo was just the church using its noninfallible magisterium, when this is what it taught: or, if the church was infallibly propsing this stuff... i do concede that it's not clear that limbo has been done away with now and so no contradiction, but why won't someone concede that it's a legit teaching of the church? won't someone concede at least that the noninfallible magisterium is now teaching in contradiction to the infallible magisterium of before? btw, i am aware that the rhetoric answer without regard to these quotes etc is that limbo has never been defined, and now it's open for interpretation as to whether it's true or not. [/quote] I cannot believe this as I think God has mercy on the little ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts