Catholic tradition of Limbo

Then when we look at the "Wording" in the link from the OP --

Clearly -- the issue is "getting into heaven" and that is what is supposedly "Addressed" by infant Baptism. Once Limbo is dropped - what then? No more infant Baptism Augustine?!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Challenge #1 - IF the Catechism IS NOT the body of infallible doctrines of the RCC - what is??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine - the question posted above will do as a start.

That does not answer the question. If Papal statements do not qualify - and if you want to include the entire Magesterium THEN will you admit that Canon Law as defined by Church councils constitute the actual "list" of infallible doctrinal statements or does "the list" remain mythical (in a "shell game" kinda way) and undefined for Catholics.

(I.E. not something you can actually point to and say "here read this list of doctrines of the RCC they are all infallible and are shown to be spoken ex-Cathedra by our magesterium".)

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please point to the list, the document that the RCC will stand up and admit to being "The list of infallible teachings".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you deny that any one source fits your description (aside from the Bible being infallible). The RCC itself "admits" that its doctrines CAN NOT be found in the Bible alone. It would be impossible for them to hold that all Catholic doctrine is in the Bible!!

So - Will you hold to all the writings of Augustine as "infallible?". There is no such RC statement claiming that - do you?

What about Canon Law? Will you hold to THAT?

Is there ANY place this shell game of RCC "infallible doctrine" can be identified so it can be READ and SEEN?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW - in these statements I don't mean to imply that you are the source for any mistake the RCC may or may not have made in history. Rather I am happy that you are willing to clarify what the RCC says on some of these issues. My point is to clarify the position of the RCC so we all know "what it is" and can compare it to God's Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. How can Limbo be "tossed out" if it was "never in"?? How can so many Catholics be taught to fear it - when IT is never a doctrine??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see... so small groups of people "just so happened" to tell stories about "limbo" but nobody actually "believed it to be Catholic doctrine". More like "Catholic rumor" or Catholic "Fairy tale" that nobody took seriously as "being Catholic" just folk lore for those who like to tell stories??

And what? NOW the "story telling must stop!"???

Why in the world would the RCC be suddenly interested in a NON-Catholic doctrine - like Limbo???

There are OTHER "stories and myths" such as the ones about Lilith that get told by the camp fires in Catholic circles. Do you think the RCC is going to come out and say "We have decided to no longer promote the story of Lilith"???

Are they really that interested in "stories"??

In Some Latin American countries "some native people believe" a great many things mixing pagan idol worship and spiritism with Catholicism - are all these "Stories" just in the same category as "Limbo" for the RCC?

Somehow - it seems unlikely!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Adam's first wife Lillith is actually a bit of Jewish mythology.

 

Looks like I have a few posts to respond to, hopefully I have time to address all of them.

Make what up?
"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.' 1 Corinthians 3:13-15

A person is tested and saved, by fire. If you wish to interpret that differently, that's your business, but I can only state what the bible says.

I'm not aware if that's the Catholic Church's view on that verse or not, I'm only giving your scriptural evidence. What Matthew 18:34-35 describes can not be hell, because you don't get out of hell as this describes, but you also aren't tormented in the fullness of Heaven.

What does this have to do with anything?

That's not try, skipping Mass on the weekend without a valid reason can be a mortal sin.

No, purgatory is based on Scripture, Holy Tradition and Magisterium. It's not about paying more, your concept is off. It's about recovering from the damage ours sins have causes on and having justice done.

That's not at all true.

In truth, Catholics offer prayers for their loved ones, asking God to help them recover quickly and enter into the fullness of Heaven as soon as possible.

 

There are NO statements in Catholic Doctrine preceeded by the claim "Ex Cathedra" in fact the entire idea of "only infallible when said Ex Cathedra" was only invented in the 19th century.[/quote]

Something is infallible when it is declared a doctrine and truth of the Church by the Pope. This bull was not declared doctrine, as far as I'm aware. It seems you are blurring modern definitions and statements about ex-cathedra with historical concepts of it.

 

What is really simple, complex theological concepts regarding salvation? The problem is that you are a legalist, simplying issues into yes or no questions. Why not ask me if Christians go to Heaven, yes or no? Well, what kind of Christians? What if that Christian is an adulterer or fornicator, like in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10? What if that Christian isn't baptized? What if he or she hasn't really given their life to Jesus?

To answer #1-#2, we can understand what baptism does for a person and how that relates to the qualifications for salvation. Yet, we must realize that a person's salvation is determined by God's judgment, not our own. Catholics who baptize their babies and believe in the hopes and promises from Jesus have every reason to believe that if that baby dies, it will go to Heaven. I have already answered what we believe regarding #2 by citing the Catechism.

 

Okay, you (supposedly) quoted the opinions of a Catholic priest. Exactly what parts of that do you take objection and wish to discuss further? Which do you find incompatible with Christianity so that I may address whether or not his opinions about that are the official position of the Catholic Church?

Please quote the portions that he said and tell me why you feel it is incompatible with true Christianity.

 

Clearly -- the issue is "getting into heaven" and that is what is supposedly "Addressed" by infant Baptism. Once Limbo is dropped - what then? No more infant Baptism Augustine?!!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]As when limbo was a popular idea in the Catholic Church, "what then" is addressed by what I quoted in the Catechism. The unbaptized babies are at the mercy of a kind, merciful and just God.

 

Papal statements do qualify. It's not a matter of if I want to include the entire Magisterium, it is that it is. Magisterium is the infallible doctrinal statements of the Church. As far as a list, I'm guessing you are wanting a list of all the Councils, Synods and Papal decrees which make doctrinal statements? That wouldn't be too hard, but I don't see the purpose of it. The Catechism is a much better source of Catholic teaching.

 

But you deny that any one source fits your description (aside from the Bible being infallible). The RCC itself "admits" that its doctrines CAN NOT be found in the Bible alone. It would be impossible for them to hold that all Catholic doctrine is in the Bible!!

So - Will you hold to all the writings of Augustine as "infallible?". There is no such RC statement claiming that - do you?

What about Canon Law? Will you hold to THAT?

Is there ANY place this shell game of RCC "infallible doctrine" can be identified so it can be READ and SEEN?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Any one sources fits my description of what, infallible teachings? The reason they have difference names is because that are three separate sources... yet they are very inter-related and all come from the same source.
Scripture: Apostolic teachings from the Holy Spirit which were written down and preserved directly by the Catholic Church make up Scripture. Scripture is Holy Tradition which has been written down, then canonized through the Magisterium of the Church- that is, at the Councils they made a doctrinal statement regarding which canons were inspired and which were not.
Holy Tradition: Apostolic teachings from the Holy Spirit which were not written down directly in a single source, but preserved by the Church through the Holy Spirit. Holy Tradition can be found in patristic writings, mentioned at Councils, et cetera.
Magisterium: Definitions of Catholic doctrine via the Holy Spirit, usually done at Councils and Synods. This was important for determining which scriptures were inspired and which were not and clearing up any controversy in the Church. A good example would be the Nicene Creed.

Since all three come from the Holy Spirit, they are all authoritative and often overlap. Much in the same way that books in the bible will overlap each other on certain issues, but not always. While the four Gospels all tell the same story and all come from God, they are not all exactly alike, though often overlapping.

Infallible doctrine can easily be read because that's the purpose of doctrine... statements regarding faith.

 

I see... so small groups of people "just so happened" to tell stories about "limbo" but nobody actually "believed it to be Catholic doctrine". More like "Catholic rumor" or Catholic "Fairy tale" that nobody took seriously as "being Catholic" just folk lore for those who like to tell stories??

And what? NOW the "story telling must stop!"???

Why in the world would the RCC be suddenly interested in a NON-Catholic doctrine - like Limbo???

There are OTHER "stories and myths" such as the ones about Lilith that get told by the camp fires in Catholic circles. Do you think the RCC is going to come out and say "We have decided to no longer promote the story of Lilith"???

Are they really that interested in "stories"??

In Some Latin American countries "some native people believe" a great many things mixing pagan idol worship and spiritism with Catholicism - are all these "Stories" just in the same category as "Limbo" for the RCC?

Somehow - it seems unlikely!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]It's not that the story telling must stop. Only if the Church issued a doctrinal statement regarding limbo or its non-existence would it need to stop. I believe the Pope is trying to have the clergy and layman favor the non-existence of limbo and the idea that unbaptized, untaught babies enter the fullness of Heaven just as much as we.
Why limbo was ever of interest I don't know. From what I gather about that time period, many people had a very harsh view about salvation. In order to support their harsh views with our ideas about God and mercy, limbo, which did not actually contradict any existing doctrine, probably came up.

As far as indigenous people mixing Catholicism/Christianity with paganism, that can only be tolerated to a certain decree until it is contradicting Christianity.

The problem with 'ideas' is that eventually even scripture can be interpreted in the wrong way. Thus, the need for Councils to establish borders for the faith. There are many Christians who do not believe in the Trinity and even try and interpret scripture funny to support their view. That's why the Council of Nicea gave us the Nicene Creed, to establish for us a basic framework for Christianity. Ideas can float around so long as they stay within the walls of our Christian doctrine.

 

I think the whole debate becomes too much complicated for the readers to understand.
Let's simply think about Limbo.

When and how was it established?
When was it declared?
What was the scriptural background for it?

This may tell us how Roman Catholic establish their own theories and sometimes force the people believe and sometimes jettison them quietly or sometimes excuse about them in a sophisticated way.

Christian belief is very simple and clear.
We were forgiven to go to Heaven just by the Grace of God. None of our works deserve to get any reward from God or to go to Heaven.
What Jesus has done for us was enough for everybody. We don't become more capable after we die, than we are while we are alive on this world. No one after death can pay for what we sinned on this world.
If Robber at the Cross could go to Heaven directly without going to Purgatory, why not the today's believers can go to Heaven without going to Purgatory?

Such theory may sound reasonable to those who have no faith about the powerful ransom by the Blood of Jesus who shed the precious blood at the Cross which is enough for all the redemption.

 

I think stray bullet has already answered your questions for you:-

"When and how was it established?" - it wasn't

"When was it declared?" - it wasn't

"What was the scriptural background for it?" - there isn't

 

That's the way how Catholic jettison their theories.

How about Purgatory?

 

Now you're moving the goal posts. This thread is about limbo. If you want to talk about purgatory, start another one.

 

I was talking about the way of excusing Jettison -Limbo.

You would say Purgatory was on the edge of Catholic Doctrines, next to Limbo, when you find it is on Impasse as well.