Limbo

Originally posted by no1marauder
What does the word "might" mean? Another improper use of the term strawman.

It doesn't say they "might" be "damned" either. It's still a strawman.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It doesn't say they "might" be "damned" either. It's still a strawman.

Has the strawman been baptised, is what I want to know.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
LOL! The meaning of the first sentence was clear to me only because I've been reading your rubbish for so long (a bit like players "knowing" each other in a long match).

The refutation for " no one at the Council of Trent would have believed that unbaptized infants could gain salvation" can be instantly given in the case of the Holy Innocents. The way, but if they intended to rule it out they would've defined limbo/hell as doctrine.

That is no "refutation" at all and you know it. You wanted context and there it is; unbaptized infants would not have went to Heaven according to those at the Council of Trent. You are exhibiting your typical hypocrisy by trying to read your present (i.e. this week) beliefs on the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants back into the Council of Trent. Obviously the Council was undecided between the Limbo and "soft" Hell doctrines, but that indecision does not imply acceptance of a third possibility (i.e. an agnostic is undecided whether God exists or not but there is no third possibility).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It doesn't say they "might" be "damned" either. It's still a strawman.

HOW???? Is being sent to Hell being "damned" or not?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Has the strawman been baptised, is what I want to know.

I'm guessing he'll burn.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is no "refutation" at all and you know it. You wanted context and there it is; unbaptized infants would not have went to Heaven according to those at the Council of Trent. You are exhibiting your typical hypocrisy by trying to read your present (i.e. this week) beliefs on the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants back into the Council of T (i.e. an agnostic is undecided whether God exists or not but there is no third possibility).

But there already was a third possibility at Trent -- that which applied to the Holy Innocents. Just because you wave your hands and say "that is no refutation at all" doesn't mean I have to take your word for it.

Your analogy of the agnostic is a false one because the absence of a third possibility is a function of logic; whereas there is no logical bar to a third possibility to limbo and "soft" hell. The Trent Fathers probably didn't think there was, but the fact is that they did not close the option.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But there already was a third possibility at Trent -- that which applied to the Holy Innocents. Just because you wave your hands and say "that is no refutation at all" doesn't mean I have to take your word for it.

Your analogy of the agnostic is a false one because the absence of a third possibility is a function of logic; whereas there is n thers probably didn't think there was, but the fact is that they did not close the option.

The Holy Innocents were considered martyrs and SOME believed that they would qualify under "Baptism of Blood". St. Augustine held this view, but STILL held the view that unbaptized infants went to Hell. Where is the "refutation"?

EDIT: St. Augustine said of the Holy Innocents: "In full right do we celebrate the heavenly birthday of these children whom the world caused to be born unto an eternally blessed life rather than that from their mothers' womb, for they attained the grace of everlasting life before the enjoyment of the present. The precious death of any martyr deserves high praise because of his heroic confession; the death of these children is precious in the sight of God because of the beatitude they gained so quickly."

Compare that with his quote given in this thread on page 2.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Holy Innocents were considered martyrs and SOME believed that they would qualify under "Baptism of Blood". St. Augustine held this view, but STILL held the view that unbaptized infants went to Hell. Where is the "refutation"?

But the Trent Fathers also knew that the Holy Innocents were not 'martyrs' in the way the Early Christians were (because the Holy Innocents did not have the ability to make choices). Even if some thought they qualified under "baptism of blood", they would admit that this was a different 'baptism of blood' from that of other martyrs. Indeed, it would've been a different category altogether from the other two (where free choice is of paramount importance).

EDIT: What quote on page 2?

Besides, even in the quote from Augustine above, he doesn't use the word "martyr" to refer to these children. Read it again - "martyr" is linked to "heroic confession", not the the Holy Innocents.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But the Trent Fathers also knew that the Holy Innocents were not 'martyrs' in the way the Early Christians were (because the Holy Innocents did not have the ability to make choices). Even if some thought they qualified under "baptism of blood", they would admit that this was a different 'baptism of blood' from that of other martyrs. Indeed, it nt category altogether from the other two (where free choice is of paramount importance).

Wouldn't the Holy Innocents have been required to go to the Limbus Partum until Christ's ascension anyway?

EDIT: Sorry, page 3: St. Augustine (III De Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin."

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wouldn't the Holy Innocents have been required to go to the Limbus Partum until Christ's ascension anyway?

EDIT: Sorry, page 3: St. Augustine (III De Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin."

Patrum and Resurrection.

Yes, they would -- but that doesn't make a difference. The OT fathers in the limbus patrum would've freely chosen to follow God as well. One could consider that a case of 'baptism of desire', or it could be a different category in itself.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Patrum and Resurrection.

Yes, they would -- but that doesn't make a difference. The OT fathers in the limbus patrum would've freely chosen to follow God as well. One could consider that a case of 'baptism of desire', or it could be a different category in itself.

Thanks for the nitpicking on the spelling, but I believe you are wrong; Heaven was not opened until Christ's ascension, not resurrection.

You still haven't reconciled St. Augustine's statements; certainly he didn't believe that the case of the Holy Innocents implied salvation without the established modes of baptism.

EDIT: As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ's visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thanks for the nitpicking on the spelling, but I believe you are wrong; Heaven was not opened until Christ's ascension, not resurrection.

You still haven't reconciled St. Augustine's statements; certainly he didn't believe that the case of the Holy Innocents implied salvation without the established modes of baptism.

EDIT: As a result of the ccomplishment of His visible earthly mission.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Thanks for the citation - but CCC 631--634 suggest the Resurrection. Anyway ...

Re: Augustine's statements

Augustine wasn't talking about "established modes of baptism" -- he was talking specifically about sacramental Baptism. Right after the De Anima quote, the CE cites:

"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.)

Now, it's not my job to reconcile what Augustine says. He probably didn't feel the need to rattle off a long list of exceptions when writing to people who already knew about them; most probably his citation has to deal with the specific refutation of Pelagianism ("if you wish to be Catholic ..." ) and alternative means of the remission of original sin were not a problem because Pelagianism challenged original sin itself (as did the heresy Trent was speaking out against in its canons on baptism).

EDIT: In an way, this whole debate reminds me of the way Protestants read the honorific "Mother of God" today as opposed to its intention in the theotokos debates of the first millennium.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Thanks for the citation - but CCC 631--634 suggest the Resurrection. Anyway ...

Re: Augustine's statements

Augustine wasn't talking about "established modes of baptism" -- he was talking specifically about sacramental Baptism. Right after the De Anima quote, the CE cites:

"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ w ...[text shortened]... as opposed to its intention in the theotokos debates of the first millennium.

In a way, this whole "debate" reminds me what a complete waste of time the Spirituality Forum is. And how malleable any so-called "doctrine" is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In a way, this whole "debate" reminds me what a complete waste of time the Spirituality Forum is. And how malleable any so-called "doctrine" is.

Then go somewhere else, why don't you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then go somewhere else, why don't you?

It's self-righteous control freaks like you who keep me here. I don't expect anything of intellectual value from a fool like you, but I don't take orders either.