Limbo is very real!
Posted on 03/17/2004 11:49:07 AM PST by johnb2004
Yes.
Ahem:
The Roman Catholic church has declared the above teaching to be Nihil Obstat -- free from error.
Do you disagree with her pronouncement? Is the above teaching in fact Free From Error, or not?
In short, when the Roman Catholic church declares that the teaching "We must conclude that infants dying in their mother's womb do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven" is a dogma which is Free from all Moral and Doctrinal Error.... is Rome right, or IS ROME WRONG?
It is not a dogma. Rome has never declared it such.
The teaching *has* been declared "Nihil Obstat" -- Free from all Moral and Doctrinal Error.
Is this true? Is the teaching, in fact, Free from all Moral and Doctrinal Error?
Or, in the declaration that this teaching is Free from Error.... is Rome wrong?
Rome has never declared as dogmatic that the souls of unbaptized infants are in hell.
NEVER!
You're avoiding the specific question that I am asking.
Rome has, by her own Imprimatur, declared the Teaching:
To be NIHIL OBSTAT -- Free from All Doctrinal and Moral Error.
What do you say, Sinkspur? Is it TRUE that the Teaching "We must conclude, that infants dying in their mother's womb do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven" is a Teaching which is Free from all Doctrinal and Moral Error?
Or did Rome (yet again, as always) utterly screw up?
And you're avoiding the truth of the matter.
Rome has never declared that to be a dogmatic teaching. So, since it has not been declared to be dogmatic teaching, all kinds of speculation is "free from error", since there is no definitive teaching to refute it.
IOW, any speculation about the fate of unbaptized infants is just that.
Speculation.
Limbo is very real!
Bollocks on a half-shell, Sinkspur. "Nihil Obstat" is not a Declaration of "Speculation", but of "NO OBJECTIONABLE ERROR WHATSOEVER".
And this is what Rome has Declared:
According to Rome, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOCTRINAL ERROR WHATSOEVER IN THIS TEACHING.
"We MUST conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven." -- NIHIL OBSTAT. "There is absolutely ZERO Doctrinal Error in this Teaching."
"We MUST conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven." -- NIHIL OBSTAT. "There is absolutely ZERO Doctrinal Error in this Teaching."
So why don't you stop square-dancing with the Positive Affirmations of Roman Dogma, Sinkspur, and admit the Negative Affirmations which Roman Nihil Obstat DOES REQUIRE:
NIHIL OBSTAT -- "There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO Doctrinal Error in this Teaching. Rome herself declares that there is NO ERROR WHATSOEVER in this Teaching."
So... is this True? Is it True that the Teaching "We MUST Conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven" is NIHIL OBSTAT -- completely free from all doctrinal error whatsoever?
"We must conclude that Unbaptized Infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". If this teaching is completely free from all Doctrinal Error, we can describe this Teaching as Nihil Obstat.
What say you, Sinkspur? Is the Teaching that "We must conclude that Unbaptized Infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven" in fact Nihil Obstat? Is this Teaching indeed completely free from all Doctrinal Error?
Or did Rome utterly screw up, YET AGAIN, as she always does?
"Free from doctrinal error" means that the opinion so labeled doesn't contradict authoritative Church teaching. But if the Church has not taught authoritatively about something (the fate of unbaptized babies, for instance), it is difficult to offer an opinion that would contradict a non-existent teaching.
Thus, on a given subject where no authoritative teaching is given, a diverse set of opinions, even in contradiction to each other, could all receive the mark "Nihil Obstat."
In other words, what you are telling me is that Rome can declare two completely oppositional Teachings to BOTH be "Nihil Obstat": completely free from all Doctrinal Error.
Apparently, in order to Defend her proclaimed Infallibility, Rome is willing to appeal to the Insanity Defense.
Sink, I do wish you well. I owe you this one... you've given me my best laugh of this fine Lord's Day.
I guess this is what Romanism comes down to.... well, at least it's hilarious.
That's a virtue in itself.
Best to you and yours, and may God bless.
Regards, OP
Rome declared nothing. There has never been a definitive teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants from Rome.
Theologians, however, speculate all over the place. They are free to do this.
A theologian declaring that another theologian's speculation is free from error on a subject on which the Church has not made a definitive teaching is really meaningless.
BTW, "Rome" does not issue nihil obstats. And, in almost every case, a nihil obstat was issued by a book reviewer.
Yeah, no doubt.
In this case, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur was issued by Edmund Canon Surmont, the Roman Catholic Vicar-General of Westminster.
You just can't trust those Vicar-Generals. They go about tossing Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs all over the place with no regard whatsoever for Papal Doctrine; why, the poor Pope could scarcely even keep track of them, if'n he weren't an Infallible Superman and all.
I betcha those Vicar-Generals don't even know a damn thing about the Teachings of Roman Catholicism. Certainly less than our own Sinkspur. Why, Sink went to Seminary for seven years!
Seven years, even!! Hell with the Vicar-Generals, he should have Cardinals for gardeners and Metropolitans for plumbers.
Or maybe the idea of Roman Catholic Vicar-Generals tossing off the occasional Nihil Obstat, and our own Sinkspur telling us "No, No, No... Not Really!" makes a Blessed Mockery of the Roman Catholic notion of an Authoritative Roman Teaching Magisterium.
Let the Vicar-Generals issue their Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats, but never fear, it's Sinkspur to the Rescue. "No, No, No.... Not Really!!"
And all you have to do, is Kiss the Papal Ring (and please look away while the Holy Father himself is kissing the Demonic Koran, thanks-kindly), and this will all make sense.
Really, it will.
Really.
In fact, I daresay you're the only person on this thread who's so worked up over this.
I haven't been "worked up" over our discussion.
Frankly, I think modern Roman Catholicism is great absurdist fun... they claim to be the "One True Church" through which souls enter Heaven by "Choosing God and doing Good Works" -- unless you're a Muslim, who can enter Heaven by "Choosing God and doing Good Works"; or unless you're a Hindu, who can also enter Heaven by "Choosing God and doing Good Works"; or perhaps a Pagan, who also can enter Heaven by "Choosing God and doing Good Works"; or even a demon-worshipping Voodooist, who can also enter Heaven by "Choosing God and doing Good Works" (don't ask me how a demon-worshiping Voodooist "chooses God", the Pope says it all works out somehow)... but the Church of Rome is still, somehow, the "One True Church"!
Which apparently, together with three-bucks-fifty, is good for a Cappucino Grande at Starbucks. Whoop-de-do! Please, somebody, sign me up immediately for a "One True Church" which denies it's own Salvific Uniqueness and Importance.
Like I said.... hilarious!
But since you bring up the matter of "worked up", I was actually annoyed with one point of your argumentation -- but which I charitably restrained myself from mentioning until now.
But, if you want to hear me "worked up" about something, I am a gentleman enough to oblige you.
In response, you answered "we are free to believe that God, in His own way, gives even the souls of infants the chance at choosing Him".
The "chance" at "choosing" Him? The chance at "choosing"Him?
Well, Sinkspur... what if NOT ONE of these miscarried, prematurely-dead, or aborted infants in your ethereal never-never-land "chose God", according to the criteria you have laid down? I guess that would just be fine and dandy, in your theology.
In other words -- theologically, you don't really give a tinker's damn if even one Unbaptized Infant makes it into Heaven or not, AS LONG AS GOD ABSOLUTELY IS NOT THE ONE WHO DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT THE CHILD MAKES IT THERE.
It's not really that important to you whether or not Billions of Unbaptized Infants make it into Heaven... the important thing is to you is, THAT GOD IS NOT THE ONE WHO DECIDES.
Do I have that about right?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I do. And honestly, that was the only thing you posted that got me "worked up" at all.
Since you asked.
Best Regards, OP
I have.
Since the Church has made no definitive statement about the fate of unbaptized infants, there is no "doctrinal error" in anything any theologian or non-theologian speculates about this subject.
As far as my own opinion is concerned, I find it ludicrous to assert that the souls of unbaptized infants, through no fault of their own, are in the pits of hell.
God is not bound by the sacrament of baptism in offering heaven to those who cannot receive that baptism. He is all-loving, and desirous that all men be saved, and He offers His salvation to even the souls of the unbaptized infant in the womb, though I don't know how.
I don't imagine that anyone who believes that God, from all eternity, predestines certain souls to perdition will buy my explanation, however.
In this case, YOPIOT does apply, since there is no dogma.
No. You don't believe in free will where God's "choice" about salvation is concerned. If you're lucky enough to be "picked," you go to heaven. If you're not "picked," you're screwed, no matter what you do.
Faith is a gift, but we must ACT on that gift.
But, that is my belief as a Catholic. You don't accept that, as a Calvinist.
Sorry if I offended you, but saying that all infants are "elected" to heaven is just another way for Calvinists to ignore any involvement of the human will in salvation.
We don't have to have everything figured out, OP. I will leave it to God to bring all men to Himself, in whatever way He chooses.
You have just defined "Nihil Obstat" down to the level of Oprah's Book of the Month Club.
I am certain, when a Vicar-general issues a "Nihil Obstat", that is precisely what he means: "Nihil Obstat: Pure Speculation! You pays your money, and you takes your chances!"
Except I don't really mean that this Teaching is "totally free from error; what I really mean is, it's "Pure Speculation!!"
It's sorta like John Kerry -- when it seemed like he was declaring of Iraq "It should be clear to the United Nations that this is not something that can be dragged out," what he actually meant was that the Case against Iraq was.... Pure Speculation!
That's what he meant! Really!!
And that's what Nihil Obstat means! Really!!
Learn to think like John Kerry, and you can be a Roman Catholic too!!
Oops. Erk.
Come to think of it, that's actually true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.