While discussing the theological idea of “Limbo,” two traditionalist Catholic apologists wrote:
Erroneous in Theology: A doctrine that does not directly contradict a revealed truth, but involves logical consequences that are at variance with that has been revealed is “theological erroneous” (proposition theologice erronea). For example, the denial of a theological conclusion is qualified as erroneous. One might place the rejection of Limbo of the children (limbus infantium) in this category, since the denial of this doctrine can logically lead to the rejection of defined doctrines. (John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors [Winona, Minn.: St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015], 178, emphasis in original)
In a footnote for the above, the authors wrote:
For example, the Council of Florence teaches the following: “We define also that . . . the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Denz., 693). Limbo is the outer fringe of “hell.” It is commonly believed to be a place of natural happiness, with only the “punishment” being the pain of loss (deprivation of the Beatific Vision). I one denies the existence of Limbo, he is either forced to hold that unbaptized infants who die in original sin go to the hell of the damned, or else he is forced to reject the above teaching which states that “those who die in original sin only go straightaway to hell”—that is “Limbo.” The doctrine of Limbo is a theological conclusion that reconciles the justice and mercy of God. (Ibid., 178 n. 15, emphasis in original)
However, in the eyes of most Catholics, Benedict XVI forever shot down the idea of Limbo, and that it was “only” a theological idea, notwithstanding the teachings of theologians as well as Florence, one of the 21 General Councils of Catholicism. It appears the debate still rages on in some conservative Catholic circles.
This struck me as interesting as Catholic apologists often claim that, when one embraces Rome and her claims to authority, such will help settle theological disputes. However, Catholics are theological divided on many topics, the status of Limbo being one. Another is whether Purgatory is a place and/or a condition. Some modern Catholics (e.g., Tim Staples) have been pushing the idea that Purgatory is more of a “condition” than a place where one experiences pains similar to those of hell, albeit, for a finite period of time to purge venial sins and the temporary punishments staining one’s soul. However, the question is not really a novelty. Writing in the early 20th century, one Jesuit priest and scholar wrote:
As to the nature of the punishment inflicted in purgatory, there is no dogmatic teaching of the Church on the subject, but the more common teaching of theologians is that I consists in the endurance of fire. In this sense the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. III.15) may be interpreted: “He himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” It is a well-grounded opinion of some leading Catholic theologians that the purgatorial suffering far exceeds in severity any of the sufferings of this life. It is natural that in the next life God should be doubly rigorous in dealing with those who have been less diligent in this life in atoning for their transgressions. (M.P. Hill, The Catholic’s Ready Answer: A Popular Vindication of Christian Beliefs and Practices Against the Attacks of Modern Critics [New York: Benziger Brothers, 1915], 383)
As Salza and Sisco correctly noted:
Due to the imperfection of the human condition, it is possible for there to be material divisions within the Church in doctrine or government due to an error of fact. (True or False Pope? 46)
Here is a brief listing (off the top of my head) of major theological debates within Catholicism today:
The status of the Novus Ordo Mass: it is valid? is it is licit?
Was Vatican II incorrect in its teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism?
Do Muslims worship the same God as Catholics?
The exact meaning of "outside the Church, not salvation."
The parameters of "invincible ignorance."
Are canonisations infallible? And if so, is the new process of canonisations, introduced by John Paul II infallible, too? If not, and if John Paul II or any other person canonised in this new process are not in heaven, is it sinful to (erroneously) act for their heavenly intercession? As Salza and Siscoe (p. 379) write (they argue for the infallibility of canonisations under the old process but questoin the new in their book):
[A]ccording to the teaching of the Church’s theologians, the Church also speaks infallibly on other matters, which fall into the category of secondary objects of infallibility. These include (a) theological conclusions (i.e., inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is immediately revealed, while the other is a truth known by natural reason), (b) dogmatic facts, (c) universal disciplines, and the (d) canonization of saints. These secondary objects of infallibility are not believed with Divine and Catholic Faith, but with Ecclesiastical Faith, which is faith in the infallible Church teaching (but not in God revealing).
The parameters of "baptism of desire."
The nature of predestination (e.g., Augustinianism vs. Thomism vs. Congruism vs. Molinism--these, and others are accepted in the Catholic tradition, notwithstanding their theological differences)
Whether Dei Verbum from Vatican II teaches that Scripture is infallible in all respects, for our salvation, or only infallible with respect to texts dealing with our salvation (i.e., only passages that are soteriological in nature)?
The exact definition of "tradition" as well as the relationship of Scripture to "tradition."
The debate as to whether the Bible is "materially" sufficient.
The debate as to whether Mary's role as co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate should be elevated to a dogma.
Theistic evolution vs. various theories of creationism (OEC; YEC) within Catholicism
Which (if any) biblical passages have been infallibly interpreted
How many infallible papal statements, pre and post 1870, have there been (e.g., whether John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis [1994] was infallible)
I am not saying there are theological debates within the LDS Church and that we are free of such; however the above, and many others, puts the lie to the popular claim that, if one embraces Roman Catholicism, such debates are unheard of--instead, embracing Roman Catholicism is a "blueprint to anarchy," to borrow from Patrick Madrid.
