RashaLampa Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I was under the impression that you are Catholic. What religion are you now? It comes down to the fact that not everything a Pope says is infallible. You really should read Vatican I. The problem you are having is that you are putting different statements all on the same level when, inactuality, some are more authoritative than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 i'm not sure about a religion. i am drawn to orthodoxy, and to the idea of a pope who isn't infallible. i wouldn't be one of those said liberal quack catholics, or the kinds who just dont care, i'd actually use all the arguments the orthodox use (and sedevacantists etc), to say why the pope isn't infallible, etc. if it weren't for these contradictions we're discussing, i'd be open to being a more orthodox catholic, one who thinks the pope is infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 There aren't contradictions, as many many peeps have pointed out. It's just that you have a pre-conceived notion that there is and refuse to accept authentic Church teaching about it. You instead string together what you perceive as contradictory statements and ask why they are not. Then when are told why not, you ignore the very answers you asked for. It like explaining why nitrogen makes grass greener to a stop sign. I suspect you really have no intention of finding the truth, but rather just want to try to justify your flawed understanding of Church teaching. As for wanting a pope that is fallible [b]in matters of faith and morals[/b], that's a scary thought....no idea why anyone would want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) funny you say that, when there's catholics such as above poster, sedevacantists, many traditionalists who have to change what their family has always been taught, other traditionalists, and especially all those historical saints that i quoted from the times of those medieval popes, etc... all who insist that those medieval popes all were being 'rigid' in their understanding. Edited May 22, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 there was no 'intention' to be lenient with limbo infants go to hell or non's go to hell, that's what it looks like. to say we now understand what 'church' means is like sayhing we now know what the definition of 'is' is, to quote bill clinton. it's plausible to say that 'they go to hell' is like a mortal sin definition, 'masturbation and you go to hell', and a lack of undersatnding can mitigate... but, that's not what the intention looks like. and, the quotes of saints who said tings like 'all protestants go to hell' bolsters the idea that no leniency at all was intended. if there's proactive rejection of a lenient understanding, a lenient understanding cannot properly 'develop' without contradicting itself. and everyone just ignores it and i'm the one doing loop de loops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306091676' post='2244508'] there was no 'intention' to be lenient with limbo infants go to hell or non's go to hell, that's what it looks like. to say we now understand what 'church' means is like sayhing we now know what the definition of 'is' is, to quote bill clinton. it's plausible to say that 'they go to hell' is like a mortal sin definition, 'masturbation and you go to hell', and a lack of undersatnding can mitigate... but, that's not what the intention looks like. and, the quotes of saints who said tings like 'all protestants go to hell' bolsters the idea that no leniency at all was intended. if there's proactive rejection of a lenient understanding, a lenient understanding cannot properly 'develop' without contradicting itself. and everyone just ignores it and i'm the one doing loop de loops? [/quote] I read all of the quotes you posted, I have read a good deal more than those over the years. No infallable statment said unbaptized babies go to hell, many said they did not go to heaven, this leaves open the possiblity of limbo. I do not think RashaLampa's explination is overly complicated, the invinsably ignorant, such as babies, may get a chance to accept Christ, and be saved by his Church at the moment of their death. This fits pretty well with the belief that Christ did essentially the same thing for those who had did before his coming. I do not see what the problem is. If the Church came out and said, babies who die without baptism go to heaven.... that would be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RashaLampa Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306097011' post='2244536'] I do not think RashaLampa's explination is overly complicated, the invinsably ignorant, such as babies, may get a chance to accept Christ, and be saved by his Church at the moment of their death. This fits pretty well with the belief that Christ did essentially the same thing for those who had did before his coming. I do not see what the problem is. If the Church came out and said, babies who die without baptism go to heaven.... that would be a problem. [/quote] You are misunderstanding me. I believe in Limbo. I don't believe unbaptized infants go to heaven. People tend to paint Limbo as if it is a cruel or unmerciful doctrine. Limbo is also a part of God's mercy. Maybe if God had let certain babies lived they might have lived sinful lives and gone to hell, so in His providence he lets them go to Limbo instead. [u][b][i]Unbaptized babies can not go to heaven this is an infallible teaching.[/i][/b][/u] We have two Councils, Lyons and Florence that point to Limbo of infants: [b]Council of Lyons II [/b]“…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, [b]to be punished with different punishments[/b]…-- (Denzinger 464) [b]Council of Florence:[/b] “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell [b]but to undergo punishments of different kinds[/b].— (Denzinger 693) As infallibly proclaimed, quoted above, in Lyons and Florence, just having Original Sin is enough to condemn a person to hell. "But to different punishment"= Limbo. Limbo is the highest "part" of hell. Hell being defined as loss of the Beatific Vision. You should check out Bill Strom, a Catholic apologist's site: [url="http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/04/limbo-and-st-zozimuss-tractoria.html"]http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/04/limbo-and-st-zozimuss-tractoria.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='RashaLampa' timestamp='1306097501' post='2244541'] You are misunderstanding me. I believe in Limbo. I don't believe unbaptized infants go to heaven. People tend to paint Limbo as if it is a cruel or unmerciful doctrine. Limbo is also a part of God's mercy. Maybe if God had let certain babies lived they might have lived sinful lives and gone to hell, so in His providence he lets them go to Limbo instead. [u][b][i]Unbaptized babies can not go to heaven this is an infallible teaching.[/i][/b][/u] We have two Councils, Lyons and Florence that point to Limbo of infants: [b]Council of Lyons II [/b]“…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, [b]to be punished with different punishments[/b]…-- (Denzinger 464) [b]Council of Florence:[/b] “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell [b]but to undergo punishments of different kinds[/b].— (Denzinger 693) As infallibly proclaimed, quoted above, in Lyons and Florence, just having Original Sin is enough to condemn a person to hell. "But to different punishment"= Limbo. Limbo is the highest "part" of hell. Hell being defined as loss of the Beatific Vision. You should check out Bill Strom, a Catholic apologist's site: [url="http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/04/limbo-and-st-zozimuss-tractoria.html"]http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/04/limbo-and-st-zozimuss-tractoria.html[/url] [/quote] I didn't misunderstand so much as type an overly short response. I know well that Original Sin is enough to beaver dam on to Hell, believe me, I have been called everything you can imagine, on phatmass alone for saying as much, including sufferng through a campaign to be labeled with " I do not rep the Church" . I hope there is a Limbo, because the alternative is terrible. As i said above , baptism is necessary for salvation. That said I do not accept that it could be part of Hell, becuase I do not beleive that Hell is mearly the loss of the Beatific Vision, one cannot be happy in Hell, not even Naturally Happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306097011' post='2244536'] I read all of the quotes you posted, I have read a good deal more than those over the years. No infallable statment said unbaptized babies go to hell, many said they did not go to heaven, this leaves open the possiblity of limbo. I do not think RashaLampa's explination is overly complicated, the invinsably ignorant, such as babies, may get a chance to accept Christ, and be saved by his Church at the moment of their death. This fits pretty well with the belief that Christ did essentially the same thing for those who had did before his coming. I do not see what the problem is. [b]If the Church came out and said, babies who die without baptism go to heaven.... that would be a problem.[/b] [/quote] Why would that be a problem? Aren't all babies obviously invincibly ignorant? I mean unless baby geniuses exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RashaLampa Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1306098980' post='2244551'] Why would that be a problem? Aren't all babies obviously invincibly ignorant? I mean unless baby geniuses exist. [/quote] The Church has already spoken on the matter in TWO Ecumenical Councils. [b]Council of Lyons II [/b]“…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, [b]to be punished with different punishments[/b]…-- (Denzinger 464) [b]Council of Florence:[/b] “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell [b]but to undergo punishments of different kinds[/b].— (Denzinger 693) As infallibly proclaimed, quoted above, in Lyons and Florence, just having Original Sin is enough to condemn a person to hell. "But to different punishment"= Limbo. Limbo is the highest "part" of hell. Hell being defined as loss of the Beatific Vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RashaLampa Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306098152' post='2244544'] That said I do not accept that it could be part of Hell, becuase I do not beleive that Hell is mearly the loss of the Beatific Vision, one cannot be happy in Hell, not even Naturally Happy. [/quote] [b]Council of Florence:[/b] “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend [size="5"][u][b]immediately into hell[/b][/u] [/size][b]but to undergo punishments of different kinds[/b].— (Denzinger 693) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I do not believe that limbo exists... instead, I believe that all those who are invincibly ignorant go to heaven after they are instructed and purified in purgatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='RashaLampa' timestamp='1306099180' post='2244553'] The Church has already spoken on the matter in TWO Ecumenical Councils. [b]Council of Lyons II [/b]"…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, [b]to be punished with different punishments[/b]…-- (Denzinger 464) [b]Council of Florence:[/b] "…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell [b]but to undergo punishments of different kinds[/b].— (Denzinger 693) As infallibly proclaimed, quoted above, in Lyons and Florence, just having Original Sin is enough to condemn a person to hell. "But to different punishment"= Limbo. Limbo is the highest "part" of hell. Hell being defined as loss of the Beatific Vision. [/quote] Only souls that knowingly reject baptism with the knowledge of the existence of original sin descend immediately into hell. Even if it were their only sin. As for "different punishments"---- different punishments have to do with degrees––for example, knowingly rejecting baptism warrants a different kind of punishment than knowingly murdering somebody. "A different punishment" doesn't equal limbo. The theory of limbo has more to do with putting people somewhere than it has to do with punishment strictly speaking. God judges you based on what you know in your heart because if he did not, he would not be just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RashaLampa Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1306099362' post='2244555'] I do not believe that limbo exists... instead, I believe that all those who are invincibly ignorant go to heaven after they are instructed and purified in purgatory. [/quote] So you disagree with what the Ecumenical Council of Florence said on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RashaLampa Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 [quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1306099954' post='2244558'] Only souls that knowingly reject baptism with the knowledge of the existence of original sin descend immediately into hell…[/quote] Can you quote an infallible statement to support this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts