Vatican Considers Dropping "Limbo"

ANSA.it ^ | 11-29-2005 | unknown

[NYer]

Carlin joked that the no-meat-on-Friday rule had been done away with, but, mused Carlin, “I’ll bet there are still people in hell doing time on a meat rap”

Surprise! Carlin was wrong. Meatless Fridays were never done away with.

Most Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.

This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:

Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!

Of course, most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing. But, do you ever remember to abstain from a particular food or do some other penance on Fridays? And, at any rate, the main rule is still to abstain from meat on Fridays, the performance of another penance instead is an optional alternative.

It's very interesting to note that the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the United States' Episcopal Conference) is currently debating whether to rescind the determination and require all Catholics to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. The Bishops are considering that a return to meatless Fridays for all Catholics would be of benefit.

[Aquinasfan]

You must start with an unprovable Belief, a Faith in some "Authority" to prove your arguments.

Not true. Arguments may begin from first principles; principles where the predicate follows from simple apprehension of the subject. An example is the first principle of ethics, that "good should be done and evil avoided." First principles do not require faith.

[adiaireton8]

Nor does it prove someone IS right.

True, but no one here has claimed that much disagreement is a sign that somebody is right. Your original claim, however, was that since there was so much disagreement, no one could be right. That is a non sequitur.

There most certainly is a TRUTH. Something or nothing. And if Something, there is no way to know until it is experienced or unless GOD whispers into YOUR ear, at which point you may want a Doctor's visit.

Some truths can be discovered through careful reasoning. They need not be either experientially discovered or received by supernatural revelation.

I don't care how much research and training one has. You must start with an unprovable Belief, a Faith in some "Authority" to prove your arguments.

Why should anyone believe that this is true? If you embrace fideism, you must be prepared to remain silent when anyone asks you why he or she should believe what you say to be true.

-A8

[Aquinasfan]

Honestly, it never fails to amaze me how many rabid anti catholics there are on this site.

At least they serve to bring up questions that may be of interest to lurkers.

Tough crowd though 8-)

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You did not ask for an infallible list of infallible teachings. You asked for a list. If you wish to take issue with a particular item that Ott or Denzinger list as "de fide" and if you wish to assert that it is not infallible, be my guest. We can debate that. But then you are setting up your own list.

If you or I were sufficiently notorious in our claim that document X or statement Y of Ott's or Denzinger's de fide listings are or are not de fide, if we developed a following and the issue became a church-dividing issue, then the bishops would need to take it up and clarify whether Ott's or Denzinger's item X or Y is or is not infallibly decided. Certain issues that to any normal person would seem to have been definitively declared de fide keep getting challenged by some knuckleheads (women's ordination, contraception etc.). In response, the Church keeps making definitive statements. Of course there's no master list that has an infallible imprimatur but there is the list known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church which itself was a response to the idiots who refused to accept the definitive collections of Trent and Vatican II, who persisted in giving an interpetation to Trent or Vatican II doctrines that was contrary to them.

Until 1570, no such Church-generated list was needed; theologian-generated private initiative lists sufficed. The various decrees of the councils were out there, the equivalents of Ludwig Ott and Denzinger made compilations (e.g., Peter Lombard's Sentences, Aquinas's Summa. These were "lists"--exactly what you asked for. They were not infallible lists, but you did not ask for such. Because Protestants did exactly what you are doing--challenged the up-to-that point accepted non-infallible lists/compendia of various levels of authoritative and infallible teachings as not binding, Catechism of the Council of Trent for the first time compiled an official list of authoritative teachings. So there's another list of the sort you asked for. No, that list was not itself giving de fide authority as a list--it didn't need that because the components of it already were authoritative at various levels.

The 1993/1997 Catechism was simply the successor to the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Precisely because people like you used the niggling argument that "no real list" of infallible dogmas exists, hence no one can really know for sure what's infallible and what's not, for that reason the bishops asked in 1985 for a new "list" of authoritative teaching, not merely a manual compiled by a theology professor (Ott), which served quite well against the background of Trent and the Catechism of Trent but which nigglers had kept challenging. So the 1993/1997 Catechism was compiled. That's your most authoritative list right now, to which Ott is an older supplement. Ott doesn't include Vatican II, so obviously it doesn't list everything--ordination of women had not even come up as a real issue until the stupid Anglicans who claimed to have real sacraments "ordained" women, so Ott won't be helpful there. But had dissenters not been such nigglers, a revised Ott would have sufficed--and Denzinger-Schoenmetzer-Huenermann was regularly revised and would have sufficed, except that people were using the silly argument you use: "there's no real list," "there's no real list," "ha, ha, gotcha, there's no real list."

You've got your list. It's the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As a list it's not infallible and doesn't need to be because it contains in it the infallible and the less-than-infallible but still to be humbly received doctrines of the Church. It is a list compiled not merely by a theology professor but by the bishops of the church and approved formally by the pope. It's not "infallible" in the silly way you ask it to be but it is a list and highly authorititive list. Sniff at it if you wish. It's what you asked for, a list.

[Gadsden1st]

I think, therefore I am....tired and going to bed. Thanks for your good will and patience. And will be happy to discuss your acceptance of the first principle of ethics as an act of faith another time.

[NYer]

Fastforward 12+ years later, I converted to Judaism

Just curious. Did your conversion require you to deny Jesus Christ as the Messiah?

[Aquinasfan]

We all understand water baptism but the verse says baptised by the water and the Spirit...What is the Catholic idea of the Spiritual baptism???

In water baptism the person receiving the sacrament receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

A lengthy Catholic explanation of Baptism

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Look, I'm not taking that bait. I believe in free will and I know that Scripture teaches it. I also know that Calvinists and Jansenists and the hardline Augustinians in the 400s and Stoics and Manichees do not believe in free will but in determinism. That's why I pointed out that if someone is a determinist, the whole business about God being unjust to condemn to hell on the basis of original, non-chosen sin makes no sense.

I know all your proof-texts for determinism. You read them one way. I read them differently. I think your reading is wrong. You think my reading is wrong and probably also think your reading is the only possible reading. Given that approach, no conversation is possible--unless you grant that it's possible that the verses can be read in a way other than you do, there's no point in trading our readings back and forth.

If you are a determinist, anti-free-willian, then you should be fine with unbaptized babies and unbaptized pagans all going to hell. I think that makes God into an unjust monster but you don't. And you don't because you read your precious prooftexts differently.

I know there's a snowball's chance in hell of persuading you that your reading might be wrong. So enjoy your reading of Romans 9 and don't fret yourself about those who never freely chose to do wrong ending up in hell. For you, it's not a problem.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"Perhaps they will also examine the concept of Purgatory. I have not seen any Biblical basis for it either."

No! They will NEVER dispense with Purgatory. That is a doctrine of the church and it will never change. There is a biblical basis for it. St Paul talks about a person being saved, "but only as through fire." Meaning a person is purified of his sins by the cleansing fire of purgatory after which he is saved - fit to enter heaven. Jesus opened the gates of heaven by his death on the cross. By his death he took away the eternal punishment for sin but not the temporal punishment. In other words, when you commit a sin you cannot expect to escape the consequences of that sin. If you kill someone the earthly or temporal consequences is jail time or the death penalty. You can be sorry for that sin and Jesus will forgive and you can go to heaven but not until you have paid a penalty for it, either on earth, such as going to jail or in purgatory if you have not made up for the sin while on earth. The doctrine of Purgatory is both biblical and logical.

As for limbo it was always only theological speculation. Thomas Aquinas I believe. He said that original sin alone did not merit the pains of hell UNLESS actual sin was added to it. Babies can't commit sin so he speculated that because of original sin without actual sin they go to limbo which is a place of natural or earthly happiness (but not the ultimate bliss of being face to face with God. )I actually think it is a very reassuring idea. But it was never a doctrine of the Church so it is entirely permitted to dispense with it.

[warsaw44]

Bit is also sheds light on the fact that some within the Republican party / Conservatives are simply Anti Catholic plain and simple.
Aquinasfan, I'm sure I don't have to remind you of earlier such threads. Compared to them this one has been polite.

[livius]

Just got back to the thread - thanks for a great discussion, folks!

I think there are many things that we don't and can't know, but it's still our responsibility to try to know them, given the understanding - philosophical, scientific, etc. - that we may have at a particular time. And the Church sorts out for us what is speculation (which may or may not be true and may or may not be good and helpful), what is completely erroneous from the word go, and what absolutely must be believed to be saved - that is, to know the truth.

I think the Church is capable of understanding and including this - sects are not - and that is one of the distinguishing things about having been given the Keys.

[HighlyOpinionated]

If you don't have this concept, you end up believing that people's dogs go to Heaven (which they don't),

WHOA, now. Don't go touching that subject because it's just YOUR opinion. Here's where you're misinformed.



The following are excerpts from Will I See Fido in Heaven?

Animals Do Have a Soul
In the Old Testament, the soul means "living being." The soul is the living being of a person or an animal. The soul is the psyche, the mind, the emotions, the self-image -- the psychological being apart from the spiritual being.

The King James Authorized Version, revised and edited by W.C. Sanderson, indicates in a footnote that "soul" or "living being" are alternative translations for "life." The soul perceives, thinks, feels, and makes decisions and choices. In man, the soul can also cause sin. God gave man the choice to choose sin or righteousness, to worship himself or God.

The lesser animals were not given this choice. God put them under the protection and dominion of man.

Animals Do Have a Spirit
The word "spirit" (ruach in Hebrew) means "wind, breath -- the living power of God's will at work." The spirit is the essence and will of God given to all humans and animals.

"I decided that God is testing us, to show us that we are no better than animals. After all, the same fate awaits man and animals alike. One dies just like the other. They are the same kind of creature. A human being is no better off than an animal, because life has no meaning for either. They are both going to the same place - the dust. They both came from it; they will both go back to it. How can anyone be sure that a man's spirit goes upward while an animal's spirit goes down into the ground?" (Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 TEV)

God has dominion over both his lesser creatures and man. All souls belong to Him and God can do with all His creatures whatever He chooses. The Book of Job says:

"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:9-10 KJV) (I know, I'm a Roman Catholic and I'm quoting from a book that uses the KJV. Well, get over it. I'm still a Roman Catholic and God is still God. And, she quotes from the Douay-Rheims below.)

Animals Are Innocent
The Scriptures say that animals are not of themselves sinners, but are subject to the results of sin -- not of their own accord, but because of man's sins.

God subjected animals to death just as He did man. However, in doing so, He also gave them hope for the future. Paul wrote in the Book of Romans:

"Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Romans 8:21-22 KJV)

Animals Share in the Covenant with Noah
Sin continued and the condition of the earth worsened...God decided to destroy the world with a flood. However, He found one man named Noah who, along with his family, was righteous before Him. God decided to save Noah and his family and at least one pair of each kind of animal.

Genesis 9:8-16 gives us seven accounts of God's covenant with both man and animals concerning our survival on planet Earth as long as the earth remains. It says, in part, in the original DOUAY-RHEIMS version:

"...Thus also said God to Noe (Noah), and to his sons with him, behold, I establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you;

And with every living soul that is with you, as well in all birds as in cattle and beasts of the earth, that are come forth out of the ark, I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood,

And God said: This is the sign of the covenant which I give between me and you, and to every living soul that is with you, for perpetual generations.

And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.

And the bow shall be in the clouds, and I shall see it, and shall remember the everlasting covenant that was made between God and every living soul of all flesh which is upon the earth." (Genesis 9:3-16)

Animals were meant to live forever, just like Man
The Scriptures tell us that animals do have an eternal existence with God, along with the children of God. They have a soul and a spirit, just like we do. Paul's letter to the Ephesians tells us that God works all things (creation) after His will.

"Let everything he has made give praise to him. For he issues his command, and they came into being; he established them forever and forever. His orders will never be revoked." (Psalm 148:5-6 TLB)

Will I See Fido in Heaven?
When you realize that life does not end at physical death, the pain of losing a pet is not so bad. "Will I See Fido (My Pet) in Heaven?" will bring peace, great joy, enlightenment, and contentment to all who truly love their pets and hope to see them in Heaven.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"All humans go directly to heaven except the ones that understand the 10 commandments and go against them."

No that makes no sense. Let's say that John and Bob rob a bank. They smash the get away car and John dies. Bob lives and goes to prison for 10 years. Right before he died, John repented of his sins. Bob repents too but still has to go to prison for 10 years. So both committed the same sin and both repent but John goes straight to heaven and poor Bob sits in jail for 10 years.

What makes much more sense is that John, before going to heaven, goes to purgatory where he experiences the jail time he would have had on earth. Then after he is cleansed and expiates his crime he can go to heaven and be with God. Purgatory can take place on earth or after death or both. It is a cleansing process...what some Protestants call the discipline of the Holy Spirit. Jesus paid the eternal price for our sins but when we sin we must be willing to accept the temporal consequences. No criminal would expect to let out of jail because he is born again in prison and sorry for his sins.

[Buggman]

I'd be surprised if "the Limbo of the Fathers" was dropped. The doctrine makes sense to me.

You think that Abraham, who was called the friend of God, and Moses, with whom God spoke face to face as one speaks to his friend, are in a place without God?

[livius]

Catholics don't believe that animals go to Heaven, strictly speaking, since animals are not made in the image of God and do not have free will. They did not sin and hence were not redeemed. However, look at my earlier post - there are many things that the Church leaves blank - and who knows how God handles things when Man, the Gardener of the Garden, assigned responsibility for all the animals and the entire world, and redeemed by His Son, presents to the Lord what he has done with this task?

We don't know, so all we can do is trust in the Lord and live good and faithful lives and know that God will do whatever is right and necessary to draw all things to Himself.

[Buggman]

The Eastern tradition always limited the word "sin" to "actual" (freely chosen) sin, which does condemn to hell, justly so.

Biblically, the eastern tradition wins:

The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, "What is it to you that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the teeth of the sons are dull? As I live," says the Lord GOD, "to you there is no longer any occasion to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are Mine. As the soul of the father, also the soul of the son, they are Mine. The soul that sins, it shall die. . . The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him."
--Ezk. 18:1-4, 20

We do suffer the natural consequences of Adam's sin--a cursed world, the inclination to sin ourselves, etc.--but none of us are sent to Hell for Adam's sin, nor cut off from God for eternity in Limbo (which would, in fact, be Hell).

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

'The only God I believe in does not grant to men the capability of cleansing an infant of "original sin" by baptism. I consider the whole idea to be imbecilic in the extreme. How can an adult with a brain believe this garbage?"

Jesus told the apostles to go forth and teach all nations and to baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The priest is not cleansing the infant of sin, the Holy Trinity is doing that. The priest/man is appointed to pronounce that the person is baptized IN THE NAME of the Father...ect.

Surely you understand this.

[ladyjane]

So the concept of Limbo is in limbo?

But where will all the little dogs and cats go? Why don't they get rid of Purgatory instead?

[victim soul]

what else in Catholic/Christian teachings exists or doesn't based on opinion? I suggest you read The Catechism of the Catholic Church for the answers you are looking for.