New Age Catholics

[Francine]

Wait just a cottin pickin minute. Am I hearing that Catholics believe Limbo is an official doctrine?

Not Limbo, but the doctrine that generates Limbo, i.e., that souls which have no mortal sin but original sin alone still suffer the pains of hell, but to a different degree. This was taught by the council of Florence, and I cited it earlier in this thread.

 

[rheff78]

If you're talking to me, no. I was referring to everything else. I haven't figured out how to multi quote yet, I just know how to quote the whole thing.

 

[Quiddity]

On the contrary, it is written (Council of Florence session 6): "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

I should have done this the first time around. Can you help me find this quote here:
Paul III** Council of Trent-6

Since your quoting Trent I want to be able to read Context. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

 

[Francine]

I should have done this the first time around. Can you help me find this quote here:
Paul III** Council of Trent-6

Since your quoting Trent I want to be able to read Context. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

Why would I look for Council of Florence canons in Council of Trent canons?

 

[Quiddity]

Why would I look for Council of Florence canons in Council of Trent canons?

To entertain my error...

I stand corrected. Off I go to the Council of Florence. Be right back.

 

[Quiddity]

Not Limbo, but the doctrine that generates Limbo, i.e., that souls which have no mortal sin but original sin alone still suffer the pains of hell, but to a different degree. This was taught by the council of Florence, and I cited it earlier in this thread.

What is the doctrine that generates Limbo ?

 

[Francine]

What is the doctrine that generates Limbo ?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1059540-post11.html

 

[Te Deum]

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:

11 Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?
A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.

12 Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

Auctorem Fidei by Pope Pius VI, August 28, 1794:

[Errors of the Synod of Pistoia.] The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire [...] is false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Further information on Limbus Infantium:

• 1910 New Catholic Dictionary
• Catholics United for the Faith
• Father Mateo Q&A, 1993
• New Advent
• Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?

 

[jolakoturinn]

So... because God has revealed where they go they are in a limbo (an undecided/unknown state), but not in "Limbo" (a nether region of Hell).


Thanks!

 

[Francine]

Auctorem Fidei by Pope Pius VI, August 28, 1794:

[Errors of the Synod of Pistoia.] The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire [...] is false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Thank you Te Deum, by pitting the Pope against the Council of Florence's declaration that the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished, you have demonstrated that Catholic Dogma does change.

Council of Florence session 6: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

 

[jolakoturinn]

Francine: I do not see Auctorem Fidei and Florence as contradicting each other. They both say that that place exists.

 

[Quiddity]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1059540-post11.html

I think what you are missing is that the Church hasn't generated anything of the sort. You, apologist, and even theologians certainly make that leap (which is ok to do) but it's a mistake to think it's an actual doctrine.

Let me give you an example. In the early Church it was known (as is clear in early writings) that all must be baptized in order to be saved. Some took it so far as to say that even if you had a desire to be baptized (theif on the cross), that unless you actually were baptized you were toast. This is what some catholics believed and it was a logical conclusion based on some of the early writings. It wasn't until later that Church said "no...no...no we didn't intend to make it so literal as to leave out exceptions". So what did the Church do? It begins to clarify the matter via Councils and writings in general.

It's the same with the Council of Florence. You are reading it properly and making a logical conclusion but it's not to be taken so literal as to not allow exceptions and development. So yeah, you are right that it changes only in the sense that it is further clarified, but not in the sense that it means something else or contradicts itself. Is that what you meant?

 

[jolakoturinn]

I agree with what Victor is saying. Thus I immediately think the two statements are not contradictory, but Francine immediately thinks they are. It's about conclusions.