Catholic tradition of Limbo

[BobRyan]

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

To Hell With Limbo, Say Theologians
The Roman Catholic Church may soon jettison a disputed but long-held belief in an ethereal bit of real estate on the outskirts of heaven known as limbo. According to Catholic tradition (though not official church doctrine), limbo is the dwelling place of worthy nonbelievers and babies who die before they can be baptized. But a commission of theologians that met in Vatican City last month is expected to recommend to Pope Benedict XVI that limbo be officially dropped from church teachings.
The idea of limbo originated in the Middle Ages, but it has been contested for years. In 1984, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the current pontiff said the concept of limbo had "never been a definitive truth of the faith." The word itself comes from the Latin limbus, meaning edge or hem. This hemline of heaven was reserved for those who do not deserve heaven or the suffering of purgatory and hell.
While an official doctrine on limbo is still, well, in limbo, a draft catechism reportedly says that unbaptized babies who die--and, presumably, aborted fetuses--will be seen as fit to enter heaven. An official announcement is expected within a year or so.
US News and World Report – January 9, 2006
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060109/9world.htm

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

 

[BobRyan]

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

Stray Bullet
I'm really not here to answer challenges. If you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer.

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

To answer your question, Magisterium is the infallible doctrines of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a synthesis of Scripture, Holy Tradition and Magisterium.

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

 

[BobRyan]

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".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stray Bullet said
That would be Scripture, Holy Tradition and Magisterium. You can point to the bible to see infallible teachings, the synods, Councils, Ex-Cathedra declarations and Holy Tradition within patristic writings to find all three of these.

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

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[BobRyan]

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??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limbo was a theological belief developed and circulated by some people in the Church centuries ago to offer some explanation as to what happens to the unbaptized. It gained popularity with most of the clergy, but was never addressed by a council, synod or ex-cathedra decree. Therefore, it was never a doctrine. It was not something taught as a doctrine either- people were free to accept or reject it.

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

 

[mioque]

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

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by stray bullet:
the successors and teaching of the apostles, Holy Tradition and Scripture.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is no word "Holy Tradition" in the Bible. That is just the Roman Catholic Theory:
Again I want to remind you of the Holy Bible saying:
"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" Matthew 15:6
Where is the purgatory mentioned in the scripture? Are you not following the tradition?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. What is the biblical basis for Purgatory except Apocrypha?

1 Corinthians 13 speaks of the fire that shall test and purify men. As well:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________


You may be talking about 1 Cor 3 instead of 13, which says about Christ as the foundation. No man can build up upon any other foundation like Peter, the human being, than Jesus Christ.

It explains about the test of the works, not the test of any person by fire.

"Fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is"
By such tests, every person will be awarded his or her own rewards. It doesn't mention any single spelling of PURGATORY.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." - Mat 18:34-35
Hell is not temporary as is described here.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you think that any one can pay all that is due to him? Can you pay anything due to you now?
Can you pay anything due to you after death? Do you become more capable to pay after death, than while you are alive now?

Mt 18:22-35 talks about the forgiveness, not about PURGATORY. If the person took the forgiveness as really his own and became a true believer, he would not have done so like casting his fellow servant into prison. So, it talks about the hell.
Don't you believe that Jesus Christ has already paid all that is due to you ?

I believe that Jesus Christ paid all the price for my sins and that it was sufficient when Jesus declared " IT IS FINISHED".

Do you have this faith in you as well ?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. What were the doctrines on Purgatory before Council of Florence?

Something is supported via scripture and Holy Tradition before being declared and defined as doctrine.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition Matthew 15:6
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. How was the doctrine of purgatory declared?

Are you asking for the actual doctrine or Holy Tradition and Scriptural support?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

It sounds that you don't know much about the process how the Council of Florence declare the Purgatory and about the theory before that council. Purgatory seems to have showed up among Roman Catholics only after 593 AD and it was declared at Council of Florence.
Please let me know as much as about how the Florence Council declared it. If it was inspired by Holy Spirit, who received the message from Holy Spirit ?
What was the statement by Holy Spirit at that time, as we read Isaiah and Daniel?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Do you still maintain the following doctrines?
Please answer by Yes or No.

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878)
"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; (Denzinger 1647)

If you wish just to site a few pieces of what a pope says and make it sound like we think all those who aren't Catholic go to hell, then feel free to on this baptist forum. However, if you wish to discuss this in context and with what the Church means, I'll be happy to continue. I'm here and will gladly discuss with you what we believe. I realize there are people that are honestly curious and those that just wish to make us look like we think everyone who isn't Catholic is going to hell. I just want to make sure which you are, so I'm not arguing with a wall or anything

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, you try to avoid answering by Yes or No, but excuse in a complicated human theory which is typical way of Roman Catholic when they are in the impasse with their own human made doctrines.

Pope Pius 9 clearly mentioned 2 things:
1) NO SALVATION OUTSIDE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC.
2) PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Is 1) wrong or 2) is wrong? Or both are correct or wrong?
__________________________________________________________________________

6. Council of Toulouse in 1229 prohibited the Bible Reading, Bible Translation, Possession of Bible. Do you or Roman Catholic still maintain that doctrine now ?

There are thousands of sites recording the history of Bible Prohibition by Roman Catholic, do you deny it?

Anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church knows this is absolutely absurd. Do I admit that some sites, some books, without any citation, wish to make it seem like that Catholic Church prohibited the bible? Absolutely. It is popular to portray Catholics as biblically ignorant Christians being fed lies by the Church. However, the Mass, the divine liturgy, calls for quotes from the OT, the Epistles and two Gospels. I go to a Tridentine Mass, a very ancient Mass, and we hear from the bible, and quotes from the the Gospel, twice, regardless of what is going. In fact, every three years the entire Gospel is covered by each Sunday Mass. More current Masses also call for citations from Prophetic books of the OT, other OT books, the Gospel and the Epistles, to be read aloud in entirity after a period of three years.
Furthermore, Catholics are given passages from the bible in each bulletin at the end of Mass to read each day. The Catholic Church teaches that so many problems are due to a lack of biblical literacy and that it is good for the soul to read the scripture daily.

Now, what do you mean by the Council of Toulouse? There are only 21 Ecumenical Councils:
Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, Nicaea II, Constantinople IV, Lateran I, Lateran II, Lateran III, Lateran IV, Lyons I, Lyons II, Vienne, Constance, Florence, Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II

Could you please cite the decrees forbidding the reading of Scripture? That would be particularly bizarre, considering that the bible was read from 4-5 passage at a time, over a period of 3 years to cover entire books at each Latin Mass. If there were any truth to this, then one could easily cite what was stated, instead of 'informing' us what was stated.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, you are denying the history as Iranian president denies Holocaust.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains about Council of Toulouse:
The territory was ultimately ceded almost entirely by both Amalric and Raymond VII to the King of France, while the Council of Toulouse (1229) entrusted the Inquisition, which soon passed into the hands of the Dominicans (1233), with the repression of Albigensianism.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

However, you should realize that Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t tell the whole truth.
Look at this:
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/romedestroyed.htm

Please comment on this site:
http://www.xanga.com/PicturesGalore/417095291/item.html

"The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally
suppressed, opposed, and forbidden the open use
of the Bible. It was first officially forbidden
to the people and placed on the index of Forbidden
Books List by the Council of Valencia in 1229 A.D.
The Council of Trent (1545-63 A.D.) also prohibited

That site is nothing but a series of lies and anti-Catholic proganda.

The Catholic Church preserved and canonized the bible for 1500 years until the Reformation, which got the bible from the documents preserved by the Church. The bible was canonized by the Church. Not only did the Church work to preserve and speak the whole Gospel to all believers for 2000 years, but work diligently to promote an understanding and application of the Gospel. Catholics used to pack Churches after Sunday Mass to hear sermons from priests. As though the hours of prayers, Gospels, Epistles, OT readings and hymns were not enough.. they wanted even more!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
You don’t know the true history of the Bible translation. Roman Catholic prohibited reading Bible, possession of Bible, Translation of Bible. Wycliffe was expelled from the church and his bones were ordered to be exhumed and burned by Pope. Read this :
http://www.wycliffe.org/history/JWycliff.htm
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html
Also, Roman Catholic killed William Tyndale by burning as well.
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm

The history on overall persecution of Bible by Roman Catholic is well described here:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/romes-persecution-bible.html
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a79.htm
Testimony by former Roman Catholic:
http://journals.aol.com/team1min/YourTownforJesus/entries/665
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the Catholic excuses on Council of Toulouse:
When the heresy of the Albigenses arose there was a danger from corrupt translations, and also from the fact that the heretics tried to make the faithful judge the Church by their own interpretation of the bible . To meet these evils, the Councils of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible .

The full context is found here:
http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol1.htm

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Do you believe that Popes are infallable?
( at least what was declared at the chair of Peter's)

The Pope is no more infallible than an apostle. Like his apostolic successors, the Pope can make decrees which are from God, like Peter did in Matthew 16. These don't make the Pope 'infallible' he is still a moral human being.

8. Catechism: You may interpret Indulgences differently. Then do you still believe that the Indulgence sales was right? Please comment the followings too.

No, the sale of indulgences was never right and was a gross abuse of Catholic doctrine at the time. It was done by local clergy to fund community projects. One can study what was believed by the Church about indulgences at the time and the idea of selling indulgenes, especially for the souls of others, is an absolute contradiction of our beliefs.

Catechism:
1498 Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory.

9. Did the Robber at the Cross, beside Jesus go to Paradise directly ? or went thru Purgatory? If he went to Purgatory as well, then when did he go there? after going to Paradise?

10. Did Mother Teresa go to Purgatory as well ? or did she go to Heaven directly? If she was canonized as a Saint, does she still have to go to Purgatory as well ? Who declare anyone as a Saint? Please answer with a view to the Catholic Doctrine. [/QB]

First, we must realize what purgatory is.
Purgatory is not a second chance, nor a way for the unsaved to make it to Heaven. It is only for the saved who, in scarring their souls of sin, have such imperfections purged from them. Like a plank of wood with nails hammered in, even if the nails are removed from the wood, like sins from our soul, the damage of the nail remains and must be repaired.

The thief, in suffering horrible punishment, paid his dues. He in fact, is a saint. Mother Teresa, unless she is declared a saint, is presumed to have gone through purgatory.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you believe that the Robber at the Cross could go to heaven without passing thru Purgatory, don’t you believe that you can go to Heaven directly without passing thru Purgatory, as long as you believe in Jesus in the same way as the Robber did ?

You are confessing that even Mother Teresa could go to Purgatory if she were not declared as Saint by Pope, which means that Pope, the human being, can decide who should go to Purgatory or go to Heaven directly.

Let me ask you about the Papal Infallibility :
If Peter was the first Pope, why was he condemned and rebuked by Jesus immediately after the confessing of his faith?
Matthew 16:23
Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men

Isn’t this the first mistake by the First Pope ?
What about the three times of his denial before the cock crow ?
What about his hypocrisy in Galatians 2:11-14?

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Was it because Peter didn’t carry his own Chair ? and didn’t declare Ex-Cathedra?
What kind of special power exist in the Cathedra?

Among the Bulls and Doctrines declared by Roman Popes, there were many contradictions each other, how would you explain about them?

[ January 16, 2006, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[stray bullet]

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

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Then the RCC is "dead wrong". 1 Cor 3 says NOTHING about the PERSON being burned or tried by fire - the RCC will sometimes "make that up" but there is nothing in 1Cor 3 about that.

(And BTW - there is nothing in 1Cor 13 about that "either" [Wink] )

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.

Then the RCC is "dead wrong again".

In Matt 18 ALL the debt owed is forgiven "ALL"!! When the slave refuses to forgive others ALL his debt must be paid. This totally removes Matt 18 from the RCC concept of purgatory because of the following:

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.

#1. The RCC teaches that the mortal sins CAN NOT be paid for in Purgatory. Were such a debt of sin to be RETURNED then the sinner would be in HELL EVEN by RCC standards!

What does this have to do with anything?

(And skipping church on Sunday EVEN ONCE without a good reason is a mortal sin according to the RCC).

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

The entire system of indulgences is based on the mythical notion that the saints PAID MORE (in torment and sufferng) THAN THEY OWED in this life for venial sins so their EXCESS torment is available to PAY for what we might owe when we go to purgatory!

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.

RC members are considered "unloving and unkind" if THEY leave a loved one in God's Purgatory for as long as God would have them left in there. They are considered 'bad children' if they do not seek indulgences for their dead ancestors.

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.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

By what are you declaring this a doctrine since it is a Bull and does not carry with it Ex-Cathedra status, as far as I am aware?

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.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by BobRyan:The point is really simple if you care to address it.

#1. According to RC teaching when a Baptized infant dies do they go to heaven -- yes or no will do.

#2. According to RC treaching when a non-Baptized infant dies are they guaranteed to go to heaven -- a simple yes or no will do to illustrate your point.

In Christ,

Bob

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.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

(Though it is not uncommon to find Catholic apologists "turning on" their OWN RC historians and publications that "admit too much" of actual history in print.)

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.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Then when we look at the "Wording" in the link from the OP --

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
To Hell With Limbo, Say Theologians
The Roman Catholic Church may soon jettison a disputed but long-held belief in an ethereal bit of real estate on the outskirts of heaven known as limbo. According to Catholic tradition (though not official church doctrine), limbo is the dwelling place of worthy nonbelievers and babies who die before they can be baptized. But a commission of theologians that met in Vatican City last month is expected to recommend to Pope Benedict XVI that limbo be officially dropped from church teachings.
The idea of limbo originated in the Middle Ages, but it has been contested for years. In 1984, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the current pontiff said the concept of limbo had "never been a definitive truth of the faith." The word itself comes from the Latin limbus, meaning edge or hem. This hemline of heaven was reserved for those who do not deserve heaven or the suffering of purgatory and hell.
While an official doctrine on limbo is still, well, in limbo, a draft catechism reportedly says that unbaptized babies who die--and, presumably, aborted fetuses--will be seen as fit to enter heaven. An official announcement is expected within a year or so.
US News and World Report – January 9, 2006
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060109/9world.htm

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.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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".)

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.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Stray Bullet said
That would be Scripture, Holy Tradition and Magisterium. You can point to the bible to see infallible teachings, the synods, Councils, Ex-Cathedra declarations and Holy Tradition within patristic writings to find all three of these.

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.

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Limbo was a theological belief developed and circulated by some people in the Church centuries ago to offer some explanation as to what happens to the unbaptized. It gained popularity with most of the clergy, but was never addressed by a council, synod or ex-cathedra decree. Therefore, it was never a doctrine. It was not something taught as a doctrine either- people were free to accept or reject it.

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.

 

[Eliyahu]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Eliyahu]

That's the way how Catholic jettison their theories.

How about Purgatory?

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Eliyahu]

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.