Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Thanks. Of course they still teach it. It's part of the doctrine. A somewhat embarrassing part, apparently, but that doesn't stop Rome from putting it out there.
If there's "no more limbo", does that mean I'll be getting all of my lost socks and luggage back now?
Related threads:
A U-turn or just theological speculation? [Has the Church thrown out Original Sin with Limbo?]
The Limbo controversy: Time for reflection
Catholic parents aim for quick baptism of babies with or without limbo
Critiquing limbo: Vatican responds to changes in theological thought
Limbo reflects 'unduly restrictive view of salvation,' Vatican theological commission says
How Long Will Limbo Be in Limbo?
Pope: No Limbo for Babies, Only Heaven (dreadful misreporting of Catholic Traditional Beliefs)
I sure don't know, I can't keep track of half the stuff that makes up these frankenthreads.
The belief is that unbaptized infants will enjoy perfect "natural" happiness. By definition that means it will not be the beatific vision. You'll notice the choice of words though, "speculation" and "usually". The complete lack of "this is the way it's gonna be doubters may pick up their stakes on the way to the place of execution" type language shows that "infant limbo" is pretty far down the ladder in the hierarchy of truth. It certainly wasn't doctrine and I don't think it qualified as common teaching. Anytime it was discussed in an educational environment there should have been lots of "but we don't know" and "probably/maybe" qualifications.
So limbo of the infants has been downgraded from "maybe" to "probably not". It's all meh to me.
AMEN!
What I DO know is that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone - on this we can know God has not left us to wonder.
AMEN!!!
Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." -- Deuteronomy 10:14-15"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
lol. Thanks for the chuckles. Rome never changes...except when it changes.
More RC double-speak. The quote you cite doesn't say "heaven," does it? It doesn't say infants will be in the presence of God or see His face.
"Perfect natural happiness." lol. I prefer the supernatural happiness of heaven.
I bet those babies supposedly in Limbo would prefer that, too.
In all fairness, you may be right. Maybe Calvin never said there was a "span long of babies in hell" but, then, what he says in your quotes makes no sense if God predestined some people to hell and some to heaven.
It seems Calvin is toying with the idea, to wit: "I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin," that somehow hell is a destination only for those who actually commit sin—a works-based cause and effect!
Any way you slice it, it's more merciful than "foreordained to everlasting death."
I have already mentioned to Dr. E that Calvin's position toys with works-based damnation, which is a clear contradiction of the Reformed belief in double predestination.
Proverbs 12:17
Thankfully, most Calvinists believe infants who die young are covered by the grace of Christ and go straight to heaven.
Unlike the foul doctrine of Limbo preached by Rome which deprives innocent babies of ever seeing God’s face.
Tragically foul. Rome thinks it can bully its members into a foolish compliance by scaring them.
Christ frees what Rome imprisons.
There is IN DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE:
The Catholic Church of North America (North American/ European cultural aspects affecting what North Americans actually believe and practice)
The Catholic Church of Europe (more strictly European culture affecting what the traditional Europeans actually believe and practice)
The Catholic Church of the Philippines (Filipino cultural aspects affecting what the Filipinos actually believe and practice)
The Catholic Church of Mexico and Central America (Central American cultural aspects affecting what Mexicans and Central Americans actually believe and practice)
The Catholic Church of Japan (Japanese cultural aspects affecting what the Japanese actually believe and practice)
The Catholic Church of Korea (Korean cultural aspects affecting what the Filipinos actually believe and practice)
The Catholic Church of Haiti (Haitian cultural and RELIGIOUS aspects affecting what Haitians actually believe and practice)
And it goes on and on.
So the Catholic ant-defamation crowd will now come back and try to make all non-Catholics somehow believe that everything Catholics believe is uniformly in the Catechism.
But in reality, much of what many Catholics are allowed to believe and practice (I mean allowed by the bishops and priests in local regions) has nothing to do with anything in the RCC Catechism.
I just read that post, excellent point.
For reference on the latter, the Westminster Confession states that election is predetermined: "…without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto…"
People who are not even Christians say the same thing about their experience. Anecdotal "I have seen," or "I have done" accounts are useless, as Thomas Paine eloquently explains in his Age pf Reason. Maybe such anecodtal amdissions havce some truth, such as "I heard God;s voice..." inasmuch as someone thinking he or she may have heard soemthing, but we have no way of knowing if it was God;s voice or just insanity in their head. Therefore, such acocunts are useless as evidence as no one is obliged to believed them.
On the other hand, we have Paul's own words that he was all thing to all people in order to get them to buy into the mystery religion he was peddling. I admire his honesty, but that doesn't change his own admission that he was doing a sales job.
You mean Ephesians 6:4? Yet, you must admit that is a novel approach in a society where parents had absolute power of life and death over their children. And coming from a Jew who is commanded by God's own Law (did Paul not believe the Torah?!?) to kill disrespectful children that is just plain amazing!
I prefer my unborn babies "unsliced", thank you very much.
I don't see this in your doctrine. Where would this be in OPC doctrine/ Westminster Confession of Faith?
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
lol.
And Kosher.
WELLLLLLLLLL!
NO
Johnathan Swift meals for YOU!
Sheesh!
/s
LOL !
But how about predetermined heaven-foreordained hell babies, are you are follower of this doctrine?
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.