NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...............!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 11/29/2005 3:42:52 PM PST by Claud
Vatican considers dropping 'limbo'
Theologians meet to look again at fate of unbaptised tots
(ANSA) - Vatican City, November 29 - The Catholic Church appears set to definitively drop the concept of limbo, the place where it has traditionally said children's souls go if they die before being baptised .
Limbo has been part of Catholic teaching since the 13th century and is depicted in paintings by artists such as Giotto and in important works of literature such as Dante's Divine Comedy .
But an international commission of Catholic theologians is meeting in the Vatican this week to draw up a new report for Pope Benedict XVI on the question. The report is widely expected to advise dropping it from Catholic teaching .
The pope made known his doubts about limbo in an interview published in 1984, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal department .
"Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith," he said. "Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis." According to Italian Vatican watchers, the reluctance of theologians to even use the word limbo was clear in the way the Vatican referred in its official statement to the question up for discussion .
The statement referred merely to "the Fate of Children who Die Without Baptism" .
Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, gave the commission the task of looking at the issue again in 2004. He asked experts to come up with a "theological synthesis" able to make the Church's approach "more coherent and illuminated" .
In fact, when John Paul II promulgated the updated version of the Catholic Church's catechism in 1992 there was no mention of the word limbo .
That document gave no clear answer to the question of what happened to children who died before being baptised .
It said: "The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God...In fact the great mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved, and the tenderness of Jesus towards children... allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who die without baptism." This view is in stark contrast to what Pope Pius X said in an important document in 1905: "Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having original sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory." According to teaching from the 13th century on, limbo was also populated by the prophets and patriarchs of Israel who lived in the time before Jesus Christ .
I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. As I understand your question, the Catholic view is that Baptism is a Sacrament that is not JUST a symbol, but it is a symbol which really and truly brings about what it signifies. In other words, there is a physical washing with water, but that physical washing *also* brings with it a spiritual washing of the soul.
It's important to point out that this is not some kind of magic. There is no spiritual power in the water itself: but Christ in a sense channels His own power through it.
Remember that Christ often used earthly things in his own healing: his own spittle, or mud, or the pool of Siloam. He didn't have to. He could have simply said "Go and be healed" and they would have been healed instantly (as was the centurion's daughter). But for some reason, when he healed some people he made use of earthly substances in the process. This is what Baptism is to the Catholic. It is an earthly substance which, by God's power, carries spiritual grace.
When we read that passage about baptizing by water and the Spirit, we read that as water *together with* the Spirit; not as two separate and unconnected things. They go together in the sacrament of Baptism.
That's patently false and leads people to believe that Catholics teach that only a Catholic can go to heaven.
"If you want to go directly to the infallible sources you'll have to read through the decrees of the various Church Councils and dogmatic papal pronouncements which are available online. But they won't give you any information regarding the various levels of Church teaching regarding diverse subjects."
But if I do that, how will I know what's infallible and what isn't? Further up the thread there's one papal pronouncement about baptism, and a later pronouncement that contradicts it. My impression would be that, in dealing with a core sacrament, a papal pronouncement that was the doctrine taught by the Church for centuries would fall into the list of things infallible. To then see the contradictory doctrine is disconcerting.
How do I know if something is infallible or not be reading through the Church doctrines. I understand that it's all mandatory, as a disciplinary matter, but that being the case, what is the additional use of infallibility - other than as a cudgel?
What's patently false?
And yes, only Catholics can go to heaven (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). I think what you mean is that certain people who are not literal members of the Church can still go to heaven (against Feenyism). But that is precisely because they are in some mysterious way joined to the Catholic Church which is the only ark of salvation.
Is it a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays?
Men invented it; men can drop it.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...............!!!!!!!!!!
I hate you.
Okay, in this context, I agree with you.
But but but -- that's not biblical. Are you employing a (gasp) Protestant tradition to reason your position?
I asked for a list in which I could be certain, and stated that there wasn't such a list.
One person responded that there was a list: Ott's.
But that's his opinion. It's not an official list.
The other is the Catechism, which you suggested. But you've said that's not infallible either.
So, there is no infallible list of what's infallible.
Which means that any doctrine can be changed, if it needs to be, because nothing nails down the Church to anything.
The change in limbo is disconcerting.
The change in meatless Fridays, and the teachings that have come about because of it, is disconcerting given all of the weight that was placed on that in the past.
In the catechism is a strong prohibition on war and the death penalty. Is this infallible teaching?
Who thinks that?
Certainly not Catholics. We believe that once the child obtains the age of reason, he must endeavor to avoid sin and confess and receive absolution for any serious sins he does commit, or his "salvation" (we call it "state of grace") is not preserved.
SD
*smooch*
EWWWWWW cooties
The Bible says we are born in sin. No birth, no sin. Something to think about...
There is no change in limbo. There never was an "under pain of anathema" attached to the belief. The present Catechism doesn't even declare it as a belief, instead saying we trust in the mercy of God for these children.
The change in meatless Fridays, and the teachings that have come about because of it, is disconcerting given all of the weight that was placed on that in the past.
What teachings have come about because the discipline on Fridays has changed?
Do you not understand that the sin is not inherent in eating flesh on a given day, but in disobeying a Church law? Church law on discipline is not unchangeable. It is discipline, not dogma.
Furthermore, Church law still binds Catholics to observe Fridays in a special way. But the method of penitence is left to the individual conscience. After all, one who doesn't enjoy meat is not exactly sacrificing anything by abstaining. Better one abstains or does positive action of ones own design.
SD
"No unclean thing can enter into the presence of God (see Rev 21:27)."
Contra:
Jesus was God (Gospel of John).
Unclean things were all about him, all the time.
Adam and Eve sinned, and God came and talked to them before casting them out. They were unclean, but in God's presence.
At any rate, the Bible does not bind God.
Revelation states "No unclean thing can enter into the presence of God." But if that is so, it is only because God chooses it to be so. He is God, He need not have it so. He chooses it to be so, and demands that it be so, and therefore demands that sins be paid...including by the sacrifice of His innocent Son. It was not NECESSARY that this happen, because nothing is required of God. God CHOSE for this to happen (assuming that our theology is actually correct). Which means that the reason that sin needs to be paid for is because God says so, and he says so because He feels like it, because by definition nothing can bind God, so there is truly no "necessary" with God.
It's not really a development.
My wife has lost two children to miscarriage and there isn't a day goes by without me thinking about where they are and what state they are in. I await developments in this area with great interest.
I've been there, too. But I simply can not see how a God who sends His Son to die for us could withhold His Presence from an unborn child. Jesus did say that those who prevent the children from coming to Him would face a grave penalty.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.