Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[Aloysius]

KoC is correct.

in Acts of the Apostles, entire households are baptizes. when one man converted, he had his entire family baptized into the new religion. This included women, children, and slaves, that's what the Greek word refers to.

protestant theology is unbiblical in this regard, and is simply a corruption by a society which is disconnected from the culture of first century Palestine and has begun to assert the concept of individualism. if you were to say this type of stuff to a Christian in first century Palestine, he would look at you like you were nuts. they were a tight-knit culture who understood covenants as being not individualistic deals with God, but collective deals of an entire community with God. and they most certainly and definitively believed that those who died before Christ came and had only original sin had been kept out of heaven until Christ's coming; and they believed that anyone who died without being baptized would not enter eternal life. The scriptures never say anything about baptism being about individualistic choice... the concept would be entirely foreign and repulsive to a first century Palestinian Hebrew Christian.

this is the best compilation of scripture verses to back up the concept that baptism was not an individualistic choice in the way a modern protestant might imagine it was: [url="http://scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html"]http://scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522076' date='May 8 2008, 01:41 AM']In the passages you reference, adults are being addressed. Adults must choose to be baptized and choose to be saved. Parents can not do this for their children and pull them into the fold. It is a highly personal decision that only the person being baptized can make. Infant baptism is not only redundant - as Christ has already cleansed us of our inherited sin - it is also un-Biblical. Christ was all about personal choices. The idea that parents can, somehow, preemptively, make a decision for their child is contradictory to his teachings.[/quote]

Paul would baptize whole houses, children where not in these houses?

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III[/url]

Matthew 19:13-15 "Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and [b]forbid them not to come to me[/b]: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. And when he had imposed hands upon them, he departed from thence. "

[Aloysius]

haha well... overlap there huh?

btw, I didn't realize you weren't Catholic when I first responded to you... so if I sounded curt or something, I thought I was correcting a fellow Catholic so it seemed appropriate to directly point out the statement as not Catholic theology (the penguin dressed like a pope threw me off ), sorry

[Altari]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1522077' date='May 8 2008, 02:48 AM']Adam and Eve did not have sinful natures until after they choose to rebel against God. You are confusing freewill with sinful nature.[/quote]
If one does not have a sinful nature, one cannot freely choose to sin. Eve would have been unable to take an action that she knew was contradictory to God's will if she did not have a sinful nature. You're confusing actions with intentions. The act of taking the fruit was not the sin. It was the conscious and willful disregard for a direct command from God that was her sin. Sin is a mental state of repudiation of God's commands. The action is simply an outward sign that we have disregarded his commands. It is the difference between thinking, "I shouldn't do that, it is wrong"; and thinking, "I want to do that, and no one will know." Both involve contemplating an action, but only one involves a mental acceptance of sinful behavior.

I'm also wondering if you're asserting that the Genesis account is historically accurate.

[Altari]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522082' date='May 8 2008, 03:09 AM']btw, I didn't realize you weren't Catholic when I first responded to you... so if I sounded curt or something, I thought I was correcting a fellow Catholic so it seemed appropriate to directly point out the statement as not Catholic theology (the penguin dressed like a pope threw me off ), sorry [/quote]
It's all good. I'm a Pentecostal, so my beliefs vary widely from those of the Catholic Church.

And to parry the aforementioned Catholic article on the appropriateness of infant baptism, I submit a Protestant article on why it is wrong. =)
[url="http://www.biblestudy.org/question/should-babies-be-baptized.html"]http://www.biblestudy.org/question/should-...e-baptized.html[/url]

[Aloysius]

the historicity of the genesis account is not relevant to the discussion, and when speaking of original sin it is best to speak about the actions as if they are literally what occurred (ie, it would be far too annoying and confusing to constantly say something like: "when eve did the action that eating the apple symbolizes"

but Catholics believe that scripture is inerrant in what it intends to say. we believe that scripture does intend to say that our first ancestors were given a choice about sin prior to having sinful natures and that they chose sin.

a sinful nature is not required to choose a sinful act: free will has the capacity to choose to remain free will, or choose to become enslaved to sin and cease to be free will. in this case, it chose to become enslaved to sin.

a sinful nature makes one predisposed towards choosing the sinful act rather than the good act. Eve was not predisposed towards the sinful act, she had an even chance... however her descendants now have a predisposition towards choosing the sinful act because we have inherited the damage caused to human nature. we are not culpable for a sin that we did not choose, we are affected by its ramifications.

protestant theology too often ignores the difference between the sin and the effects of sin. a sin can be forgiven while the effects of it remain... if you break your neighbor's window and your neighbor forgives you, the window is still broken. baptism remits original sin, which is a defect in our nature that keeps us out of heaven, it's a broken window and heaven is the state of insulation for the house... while we have the broken window, our house will not be insulated... unless the broken window is fixed, our air conditioning is going out into the world. ie, unless original sin is cleansed, we cannot enter heaven.

[Altari]

Ahhh the semantics, and various unknowns of Catholicism, are making my head hurt. It's been fun, but I'm out. I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page.

[Aloysius]

The term used in Acts 16:15 for who St. Paul baptizes is ΟΙΚΟΣ. There is absolutely no way that term would have been used to refer to only part of a household, the term was only used and understood t

This is why the Greek Fathers of the Church, who understood the New Testament better than anyone because it was written in their native tongue, never had a problem with infant baptism; the term ΟΙΚΟΣ clearly means, to one who spoke and understood Koine Greek, the entire household: parents, children, infants, slaves, everyone. You don't use that term if that's not what you mean, it'd just be ridiculous. you could say the men of the house or the adults of the house or the citizens of the house, or those who chose to have it done if you want to introduce this individualistic choice concept to a different society, but you would not say "household" you would not say "ΟΙΚΟΣ"

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522087' date='May 8 2008, 04:30 AM']Ahhh the semantics, and various unknowns of Catholicism, are making my head hurt. It's been fun, but I'm out. I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page. [/quote]
ahhh come on... not everyone spins himself around in circles as much as me... some people will actually probably come in with simple and understandable posts lol

and all protestants being on the same page? haha... well, that's an interesting fable :

(although, on the other hand, the topic has been clearly derailed from dairygirl's initial intent... )

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522074' date='May 8 2008, 01:20 AM']yes, and the current Vatican position, which I know you disagree with[/quote]

maybe, though I don't believe I've articulated here any position for or against the post-Vatican II position on Limbo as it is not appropriate territory on the forum. Or maybe you were referring to the current magisterium overall? Just clarifying.

[quote](as golden is not a Catholic in good standing with the Church of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI, for those who do not know), is that there is a possibility that infants who die before a chance baptism might be extraordinarily cleansed of original sin by some means known only to God. so those of us who acknowledge Pope Benedict XVI are free to hold and thus debate the following positions:

1) unbaptized babies go to hell
2) unbaptized babies go to limbo
3) unbaptized babies are extraordinarily baptized by God and go to heaven[/quote]

I'm not sure this refers to only those who accept Benedict as my pre-vat sources say the same thing I believe. At any rate, I agree up to this point. My personal belief is that for the vast majority of them they go to Limbo. I personally don't subscribe so much to the idea that so very many of the infants are able to attain the sort of extra-ordinary baptism necessary for salvation. But I agree it is technically possible as my source wrote and not to be written of as a heretical belief. All I would say here is that I think it is not up for debate the fact that unbaptised babies who do not somehow recieve extra-ordinary baptism do not go to heaven.

[quote]number 1 is obviously the harshest but it cannot be written off as just mean, it's gotta be taken for what it is: a possible logical conclusion based upon everything scripture teaches about baptism's necessity... those who hold it might say that the justice of God is far above the justice of man and as such though we do not understand why it is just, it may be just from God's viewpoint... only God can know all potential possibilities and know if it is just that those who die before baptism go to hell or not. I do not subscribe to the first possibility, I hold the second possibility but define it in a unique way wherein I do not hold limbo to be an eternal place like some might, but a place of waiting for the second coming. The third position is probably the most commonly held by Catholics nowadays (the second one being the one most commonly held by Catholics fifty + years ago) and has recently been officially supported by the findings of a committee which the Pope commissioned to study the issue from the standpoint of what the Church has taught and what the scriptures teach.[/quote]

I also believe the second position though I am VERY hesitant to believe that it is only a temporary situation. I do believe that at the end of time Purgatory will disappear and only heaven and hell will remain but as I believe Limbo is technically a part of hell I'm not convinced Limbo won't remain with its subjects still there. Though on the other hand I do recognize that the Limbo as it was regarded in the Old Testament was opened and the Old Testament subjects were released to heaven. Yet again on the contrary this was before the gates of heaven were opened and they were released from limbo into heaven after the gates were opened. As the gates to heaven are already open now I'm not sure the current aspect of Limbo applies. Personally I think that since it is generally accepted by the theologians that after we die our fate is sealed (either heaven or hell), as a result we will not likely have a chance after our death to make our decision. Whether an infant can somehow obtain a form of baptism extra-ordinarily is debatable, but I do believe this happens before one has "officially" expired dead and gone and if it does not happen the infant goes to Limbo (I believe a part of hell, without pain and suffering).


[quote]as far as all of this goes: I would very much recommend everyone interested in this topic to read the Vatican's recent document about it:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...infants_en.html[/url]

this quote from that document pretty much sums up what I've been saying:
and I like this little snippet at the end about the theory proposed by this document:
baptism remains a necessary imperative for the Christian Church, it remains as it is taught by the scriptures to be: essential for salvation.[/quote]

Some interesting text there. I remember reading it some months ago. I probably should again.

Edited May 8, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522079' date='May 8 2008, 02:02 AM']they were a tight-knit culture who understood covenants as being not individualistic deals with God, but collective deals of an entire community with God.[/quote]

Interesting you bring up the concept of covenants. I learned about that whole concept initially from Dr. Hahn. Definitely still agree with him in principle on it. I think its a very important part of Catholic teaching and Catholic history to understand.

Edited May 8, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522087' date='May 8 2008, 02:30 AM']I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page. [/quote]

?

[Altari]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522089' date='May 8 2008, 03:35 AM']and all protestants being on the same page? haha... well, that's an interesting fable :[/quote]
What's a Protestant going to quote and reference? Just the Bible, that's all. No catechisms, no councils.... That's what I mean by "on the same page".

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522087' date='May 8 2008, 04:30 AM']Ahhh the semantics, and various unknowns of Catholicism, are making my head hurt. It's been fun, but I'm out. I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page. [/quote]

How is it any different than debating the TULIP among Calvinists or paedobaptism among Baptists?

Ultimately, we're all turning to some form of authority in these debates. The "problem" with Scripture is you can't refer to it without using another authority figure (even if it's yourself) to interpret it.

[CatherineM]

I would like to point out that when Adam made his covenant with God about the whole tree thing, Eve hadn't been created yet. I'm not saying that she wasn't aware of the covenant, or the consequences, I'm just saying that she wasn't an original signatory.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522179' date='May 8 2008, 10:50 AM']What's a Protestant going to quote and reference? Just the Bible, that's all. No catechisms, no councils.... That's what I mean by "on the same page".[/quote]
ahh... well, I thought that once it became a debate with you I pretty much stuck a lot to scriptural references if I was referencing anything. are we not allowed to also reason things out like I was doing?

there is no reason to avoid sources that supplement the scriptures... like bible commentaries and the teachings of those who hold the same office as those who decided which books should be in the Bible without whom we'd have way more than 4 gospels ... ie the Catholic Bishops

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']If one does not have a sinful nature, one cannot freely choose to sin. Eve would have been unable to take an action that she knew was contradictory to God's will if she did not have a sinful nature.[/quote]

Before the rebellion our first parents aka Adam and Eve lived in Terrestrial Paradise, Eden, or the "Garden of God." It was effectually heaven on earth. Nothing with a sinful nature can enter heaven. Only after our first parents sinned against God there was death and sin in the world. Before that there was no death or sin in the world, their rebellion introduced sin in the world, thus no "sinful" nature before that rebellion. Before the fall our first parents were perfect with glorified bodies, bodies which if we remain in Christ until the end we will again receive. A glorified body can not have a sinful nature. God gave our first parents the free will to choose to obey or disobey, or they would have been automatons of God. They would have only loved and obeyed Him because He forced them to do so, like a clock or like any automaton, with no thought, choice, or free will.

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']You're confusing actions with intentions. The act of taking the fruit was not the sin. It was the conscious and willful disregard for a direct command from God that was her sin.[/quote]

I have not confused this, I did say they "choose" to rebel against God, it was not their action after that choice, but the conscious decision to rebel against God's will which was the sin.

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']Sin is a mental state of repudiation of God's commands. The action is simply an outward sign that we have disregarded his commands. It is the difference between thinking, "I shouldn't do that, it is wrong"; and thinking, "I want to do that, and no one will know." Both involve contemplating an action, but only one involves a mental acceptance of sinful behavior.[/quote]

I agree and understand this completely Matthew 5:28

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart."

[quote name='Altari' post='1522083' date='May 8 2008, 02:10 AM']I'm also wondering if you're asserting that the Genesis account is historically accurate.[/quote]

I believe there was one man created by God, who then took from that man and made one woman. And this couple are our first parents and lived in Terrestrial Paradise until they chose to rebel against God and where thrown out.

Edited May 8, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Apotheoun]

Limbo is unnecessary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1521998' date='May 7 2008, 11:17 PM']my point is that the current acceptable theory proposes that baptism IS applied to such babies and as such they qualify as those who can enter baptism because they are baptized out of original sin.

the "pope is God" stuff is garbage that I have still not seen a substantiated source cited from I'll look into its context if you can provide me a substantiated source...[/quote]

oh, i see what you were saying. i thought you were saying that you don't care what it said, the current theory says you can just look over what it said... like... sacraments are absolutely necessary is the teaching, but now it says actually they are neceessary but in a necessary and proper sense only, how that'd seem to be a contradiction perhaps.

but you were only saying, it doesn't say babies will be those who suffer from original sin.

i guess the only conclusion from that then,,, is that those who are not baptised but live beyond babydom and i guess early childhood, are the ones who can die in original sin, if you are to say taht it's possible that one could beleive not in limbo.
it's possible i concede.
that the catechism says this though... should illustrate to those who say the catechim has never been proven flase that maybe it has. i do suppose tho that it doesn't say now that limbo is a hoax, and people who bleive in limbo are justified in saying what that but.

all i got is speculation then, nothing concrete.

and extra nulla. but, beyond that issue though, i would like to see more contradictios etc which i concede i don't have a lot.

"possible" "apparent" contradiction if that makes soem feel better.

Edited May 10, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

something in a Catechism can only be infallible by virtue of its sources. it's magisterial and to be respected as authoritative and good for teaching the faith, but it can only be infallible if it sources a constant infallible teaching.

anyone who enters heaven has had the effects of baptism applied to them somehow, ie been 'baptized'

on a point raised by golden: to me, just because the gates of heaven are open does not mean necessarily that the abode of the dead has entirely descended into an eternal state and it is possible in my estimation that the edge of the abode of the dead might still be above the hell of the eternally damned the way it was prior to Christ's coming.

on Apotheoun's point: yes, in both Latin and Eastern theology it is unnecessary as there are other possible theological theories. However, in both Latin and Eastern theology, it is possible. Though it is a minority opinion in the history of Eastern theology, the fact that St. Gregory of Nyssa held to it shows that it is possible within the context of Eastern theology. And though it is a majority opinion in the history of western theology, the Vatican has recently made it very clear that it is possible to reject it within the context of latin theology.