Why do you point the finger at me when you could as well point the finger at Obi?
He would say that he is better qualified to understanding the magisterium than are you (a fact I'd be inclined to agree with), and the Pope better than both of you. With that said, all you are doing is proving my general point. But I'll expand on that below.
That's not what I meant.
When you asked "I get told a lot on these boards that this is the problem with Protestantism--that we all feel like we are our own popes, etc. How is beng not doing exactly the same thing that he accuses (or would accuse) me of
," this question is also appropriate for Obi. At the very least he disagrees with Pius VI and St. Thomas (did I mention that St. Thomas, the official and greatest doctor of the Church, taught Limbo of Children?) .
Now, what makes us different than Protestantism is that we have the magisterium with the authority to settle disputes. Especially when a dispute threatened the live of the Church (meaning, a simple dispute like what you see here is hardly the stuff that would make the Pope summon a council).
Except the fact that both of you are disagreeing on what your magisterium teaches.
Well, of course!
Most disagreement is what the magisterium actually teaches. When opposing parties debate in an ecumenical council, each would not only cite bible, but fathers and previous magisterial teachings.
But again, the difference is that we have a living magisterium to settle biblical dispute, fathers dispute or magisterial teachings dispute. An application of Mat 18:17.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about limbo, since I don't believe any of it. I just think it's interesting that you think you know Catholicism better than professional theologians, popes, etc. And it seems to me that you clearly over-interpreted the previous citations you provided me.
Probably because I got back up from theologians, pope, magisterial teachings and St. Thomas (I think I've mentioned him somewhere). While Obi's position has no support. The quotation from Benedict XVI does not support him because BXVI does not teach in an authentic magisterium manner (that's why BXVI formed the Theological Commission to provide an answer).
In any case, all I'll say more about this is this: it seems to me (an uneducated non-Catholic) that your final analysis is what the debate ought to be about (namely, how infants can receive baptismal grace). However, it also seems to me that you are binding God by the sacraments, when I am under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the sacraments are means by which God administers that grace. In that case, He isn't bound to them. They may be the normal way He administers grace. In refusing them, you may cut yourself off from His grace. But to say that they are the only instruments God can use to administer His grace seems to me just absurd. In any case, though, while I agree this should be the debate (how infants can receive grace), that's not your original claim. You originally said that Catholicism teaches that unbaptized babies go to Hell, and later added that when they do they suffer by fire. So at a minimum it appears that you have changed your argument.
God is certainly not bound by sacrament. But He is bound by His word. And He makes baptism [water, desire, blood] the only means to initially justified man in the NT. Yes, He could devise some other way. But that would mean that He's going back on His word.
And no, I never said that unbaptized children suffer fire. That's the heretical proposition from the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.
To receive baptism of desire one needs to have reason. Since infant doesn't have reason God needs to supply them with it if they were going to be baptized by desire. To receive baptism of blood the infants must die a martyr death, that is dying in testament of faith.
See my comments above on your restricting God.
How is that restricting God? I did say that God needs to supply the reason necessary. If anything I'm pointing out ways how God could still save the children while NOT going back on His word (which you've proposed).
Anyway, you can have any last word you like on limbo. You provided documentation, and I see where you got your ideas. I see professional theologians, popes, and people on this board disagreeing with you and telling you that your interpretation is wrong. The fact that you are so certain you are right when the Pope himself is so uncertain that he felt the need to call a commission tells me something important about your view of yourself and your understanding of your own faith (maybe the Pope should have just called beng for the answer! You could have set him straight!) .Frankly, I couldn't care less what your interpretation of Catholicism is. I started this thread to get some answers on official Catholic doctrine, not beng's understanding of official Catholic doctrine. And while, yes, Obi's interpretation is just an interpretation, I'm far more likely to accept his views than yours (and BXVI's than Obi's, etc.).
You've got to be kidding.
Which Pope or traditional theologians (prior Vat II) taught that there's no Limbo? Even that Report from Theological Commission says otherwise (ie. that up until V2 the teaching is that unbaptized children go to limbo).
And BXVI did not teach that there's no Limbo in a definitive manner (that's why he formed the Theological Commission, which then failed to answer the question adequately).
Seriously, I've got solid ground for my case. St. Thomas, Popes, fathers, magisterial teachings. And my opponent got... the report from Theological Commission.