CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 4th October 2006, 11:38 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

I'm not interested in what he has to say.

I'm familiar with what Church documents and tradition say on the subject of Limbo.

There are three levels to theology:
1. dogmatic theology, which discusses the infallible teachings of the Church, but the theology itself is not infallible
2. ordinary theology, which discusses the non-infallible teachings of the Church
3. speculative theology, which seeks new insights into the Deposit of Faith

It is useful to the Church for its members to speculate about theology, and to discuss various ideas, and to question even the ordinary teachings of the Church (which can contain occasional error).

The Magisterium draws upon this meditation by the faithful on the Deposit of Faith in order to reach a new and deeper understanding of the Word of God. It is not dangerous or unwise, it is necessary and fruitful.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 5th October 2006, 10:49 AM
potsofclay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let me get this right... You think that it is "necessary and fruitful" for members to discuss theological ideas, etc. and that the Magisterium draws upon "meditation by the faithful on the Deposit of Faith in order to reach a new and deeper understanding" BUT you ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT another layperson (other than yourself) has to say about the topic because, God forbid, he should have a different outlook on the issue...

Interesting... Seems contradictory

Pots
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 5th October 2006, 11:18 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

What do you have to say about the topic?


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 5th October 2006, 07:13 PM
Climacus Areopagite Climacus Areopagite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
Default Mystical Baptism

Ron,

I just finished your article on mystical baptism and I have some thoughts and questions. First, I am glad new ground is being broken on this open question by you and also the recent development of the pope. I didnt know it was an open question, and I use to believe in the limbo infantium, but I always felt bad about it. And I know some Christians have been scandalized by the old underdeveloped idea.

For what it is worth I am not a theologian, but I didnt "sense" anything wrong with your speculations. While I was studying it I thought of a couple of verses in Sacred Scripture that might apply to the prenatals, infants and young children interior act of responding and accepting salvific grace the moment before their deaths:

"{1:40} And she entered into the house of Zechariah, and she greeted Elizabeth.
{1:41} And it happened that, as Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke)

and

"8:2} O Lord, our Lord, how admirable is your name throughout all the earth! For your magnificence is elevated above the heavens.
{8:3} Out of the mouths of babes and infants, you have perfected praise, because of your enemies, so that you may destroy the enemy and the revenger. (Psalms)

Perhaps they are given a momentary use of their reason before they die in order to accept the salvific grace of Christ even as Christ was acknowledged by John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb and the babes and infants who praised Christ in his triumphant entry into Jerusalem.

Anyhow do you think Ron that the Blessed Virgin had the use of her reason from the time of her Immaculate Conception? And do you think John the Baptist had the use of his reason after he acknowledged Christ in Elizabeth's womb?

Climacus
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 5th October 2006, 07:33 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

No, the use of reason cannot be a requirement of salvation, for then very young prenatals (a few days old), or the severely mentally retarded, would be denied salvation despite their innocence.

We are not saved by reason, but by Christ.

I speculate that the limbo of infants is an upper level of purgatory, without the punishments, but with spiritual development needed to benefit more fully from Heaven. So it is a temporary place, not a permanent place.

They say that the Pope is about to abolish the idea of limbo as a permanent place. But he is unable to abolish the idea of limbo as an upper level of purgatory, because the doctrine of purgatory (in general) falls under infallibility.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 5th October 2006, 08:31 PM
Climacus Areopagite Climacus Areopagite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
Default

Ron,

I didnt mean to propose reason as a prerequisite for salvation. I realize we are not saved by reason. Heaven is freely given, nothing we do can merit it. I was trying to come to terms with free will. Does an infant or a mentally impaired person have free will? I really do not know, could you help me with this.

If the infant does not have free will because he does not have the use of reason then it seems someone must choose the mystic baptism for him, otherwise it would seem mechanical. Perhaps God chooses the mystic baptism for the infant, or perhaps God assigns a member of the communion of saints in purgatory or in Heaven to be his mystic godparent and this member chooses the mystic baptism for the infant.

Maybe I am straying from the point I do not know.

Climacus

Last edited by Climacus Areopagite : 5th October 2006 at 08:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 5th October 2006, 08:55 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

The free will of the early prenatal is the clearest example of this problem; in that case the free will is potential; it is not expressed. So the prenatal who dies very early is given salvation, not because of free will cooperating with grace, but as a free gift in view of their sufferings united with the sufferings of Christ.

Then, in my view, the prenatal goes to an upper level of purgatory, where he or she undergoes a spiritual development such that free will becomes actual, and Heaven/salvation is accepted by that individual. So salvation is given in view of the prenatal's later use of free will cooperating with grace.

I think that most mentally handicapped persons have a measure of freewill and so an equal measure of responsibility to cooperate with grace.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 5th October 2006, 10:44 PM
potsofclay
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sickening

Ron, I read your article on "mystical baptism" and I have to say that I am saddened and appalled by it. You write (as you do on many topics on this message board) as if you are authoritative (less in this article than in other areas such as prophecy, etc.). You often allude to instances which WOULD support your claims, but you don't give CONCRETE information. I often wonder why people such as yourself find it necessary to "add" what they BELIEVE the Church lacks in Her teachings. For example, where did the Church ever teach or even allude to the possibility of a "mystical baptism" for someone who searches for truth selflessly? And if the Church never did allude o the possibility of that, why in the world would you want to want to question something like that? Don't you realize that your "speculations" could in fact lead and/or enable someone else to speculate even further and fall into at least material heresy? You often quote Scripture as "proof" for your arguments and examples. Scripture is not meant to be interpreted individually for each one of us to find their own "truths" of the Faith. The Church is the interpreter of Scripture. Where has the Church ever taught in it's interpretation of Scripture, for example, that "sincere prayer to God, even by a NON-CHRISTIAN" (emphasis mine) would merit them a "mystical baptism"?! This smacks in the face of the Dogma of having to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved! A non-Christian is not subject to the Pope obviously...
Very dangerous ground you're walking on Ron... watch your steps...

-Pots

Oh, and as a token of "good faith", since I read and subjected myself to something I was "not interested" in (to use your phrase), would you do the same and analyze Mr. Romero's words?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 5th October 2006, 11:42 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted.
(Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 21)

There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God.... Other modes of latent fideism appear in the scant consideration accorded to speculative theology, and in disdain for the classical philosophy from which the terms of both the understanding of faith and the actual formulation of dogma have been drawn.
(Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, n. 55)

The faithful must continually meditate upon the truths found explicitly and implicitly in the Sacred Deposit of Faith, for it is this search for truth by all the faithful which eventually bears fruit in new teachings of doctrine by the Magisterium.
See my article for a detailed explanation:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/ge...agisterium.htm

The Church is the people of God. The Church is not only the Pope and the Bishops, nor it is only the Magisterium proper. So the people of God should delve into the truths of the Faith, consider them prayerfully, and discuss them charitably with one another. This process is certain to bear fruit because the Holy Spirit is given to the whole Church, not merely to the Magisterium.

Quote:
You often quote Scripture as "proof" for your arguments and examples. Scripture is not meant to be interpreted individually for each one of us to find their own "truths" of the Faith. The Church is the interpreter of Scripture.
The faithful should continually refer to Scripture for guidance and insight. A theological argument based on Scripture is a strong argument. The Church is the people of God. And yet, Scripture is meant to be read prayerfully and interpreted by all the faithful, under the guidance of the Magisterium.

Quote:
Where has the Church ever taught in it's interpretation of Scripture, for example, that "sincere prayer to God, even by a NON-CHRISTIAN" (emphasis mine) would merit them a "mystical baptism"?! This smacks in the face of the Dogma of having to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved!
[Matthew]
{10:41} "Whoever receives a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet. And whoever receives the just in the name of the just shall receive the reward of the just.
{10:42} And whoever shall give, even to one of the least of these, a cup of cold water to drink, solely in the name of a disciple: Amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.”

So if he shall not lose his reward, then he must go to Heaven. But the passage does not require him to be a Christian. Therefore, non-Christians can go to Heaven, by means of a mystical baptism, even with a small act of receiving someone who is just because he is just, or the small act of giving a cup of cold water to a disciple because he is a disciple.

Also, you incorrectly stated the dogma. It is not that one must accept being subject to the Pope to be saved. But rather that the Pope has a role given by God in the salvation of all persons. The idea that only Christians go to Heaven was rejected by Vatican II.

This group is for members to discuss the faith openly, to consider various possible new insights into the Faith, to share with one another each member's personal interpretions of Scripture, and to seek a better understanding of the Faith, even within those truths not yet explicitly taught by the Church.


Ron Conte
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 5th October 2006, 11:51 PM
Climacus Areopagite Climacus Areopagite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
The free will of the early prenatal is the clearest example of this problem; in that case the free will is potential; it is not expressed. So the prenatal who dies very early is given salvation, not because of free will cooperating with grace, but as a free gift in view of their sufferings united with the sufferings of Christ.

Then, in my view, the prenatal goes to an upper level of purgatory, where he or she undergoes a spiritual development such that free will becomes actual, and Heaven/salvation is accepted by that individual. So salvation is given in view of the prenatal's later use of free will cooperating with grace.

I think that most mentally handicapped persons have a measure of freewill and so an equal measure of responsibility to cooperate with grace.


Ron

Thanks for this answer Ron. I am glad we can discuss these topics. Next time I will make my question clearer instead of speculating myself.

Concerning Mr Pots's remarks, Ron is in his mid forties and has been praying, meditating, and studying scripture and theology for years and years.
I have read many of his articles and see nothing that is beyond Tradition and Scripture. And his speculative theology is just that speculation and the source of speculation is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Ron address's questions of the faith that are open. As a matter of fact if it were not for Ron I would be in the state of material heresy for believing certain doctrines that are in fact either open questions not defined by the Church or are incorrect doctrines taught by both ultra liberal and ultra conservative Catholics today.

I am not Ron's cheerleader but he has helped my spiritual life and my Faith, in these difficult times we live in. Maybe he is an authority Mr Pots and you just dont know it.

Climacus
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.