They were wrong before :) [Catholics and limbo]

[MidGe]

"The International Theological Commission, which advises the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has said that the idea of Limbo is not necessary—Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to heaven. The fact that the Pope and the Congregation allowed the commission’s report to be published indicates that they agree with its findings."

Link (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/journey/)

[ChrisV]

Well, limbo was never official Catholic doctrine, so they weren't really wrong before. It's a clarification.

I prefer this phrasing from an Australian news report:

[ QUOTE ]
The Vatican has determined that limbo does not exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Call me easily amused, but I cracked up laughing at the use of the word "determined". Determined HOW? What they mean is "blatantly made up".

[MidGe]

From the catholic catechism (Vatican site link (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm)):

[ QUOTE ]
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess god is not bound by anything and therefore all of the catechism is a bit under question.


I am researching when the phrase "but he himself is not bound by his sacraments" was introduced in the catechism and why, specifically, to this statement of the catechism, and not to the whole of it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Bloody 'strine doubters, yer ALL gonna burn. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Peter666]

They should be canonizing abortionists for supplying God with so many souls.

[Peter666]

Many in the Vatican will burn for perpetuating heresy. It is defined Catholic Doctrine that all who die without Baptism (whether it be of water, desire, or martyrdom) will not go to Heaven.

To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

In order for the statement not to be heretical, they have to show that somehow the children are Baptized by the grace of God before entering Heaven. However, this would be a brand new theological speculation created in the 21st Century, with no grounding in Catholic theology or tradition. As such, it must be rejected.

One does not have to believe in Limbo to be a Catholic, but a Catholic must believe that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has never in its history retracted or contradicted defined dogma and doctrine. Whoever would do that is considered a heretic.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has never in its history retracted or contradicted defined dogma and doctrine. Whoever would do that is considered a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ok they can change that.

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has never in its history retracted or contradicted defined dogma and doctrine. Whoever would do that is considered a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ok they can change that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they would just start a new church and religion as has been done many times.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has never in its history retracted or contradicted defined dogma and doctrine. Whoever would do that is considered a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ok they can change that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they would just start a new church and religion as has been done many times.

[/ QUOTE ]
and you(re religous ancestors) can gradually find themselves in a smaller and smaller rump claiming everyone else will burn as heritics.

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has never in its history retracted or contradicted defined dogma and doctrine. Whoever would do that is considered a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ok they can change that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they would just start a new church and religion as has been done many times.

[/ QUOTE ]
and you(re religous ancestors) can gradually find themselves in a smaller and smaller rump claiming everyone else will burn as heritics.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has been doing that since it's inception and has subsequently grown from 13 to over 1 Billion adherents over 2000 years, so I don't think condemnation has hurt.

[yukoncpa]

From a few posts above:

[ QUOTE ]
It is defined Catholic Doctrine that all who die without Baptism (whether it be of water, desire, or martyrdom) will not go to Heaven.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is baptism by desire? I gather, that with baptism by desire, you don't need water? Is there scriptural reference to this concept? Can young children be baptised through desire?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has never in its history retracted or contradicted defined dogma and doctrine. Whoever would do that is considered a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ok they can change that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they would just start a new church and religion as has been done many times.

[/ QUOTE ]
and you(re religous ancestors) can gradually find themselves in a smaller and smaller rump claiming everyone else will burn as heritics.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has been doing that since it's inception and has subsequently grown from 13 to over 1 Billion adherents over 2000 years, so I don't think condemnation has hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]
but it would make no difference to you if it was just you and a few others left. would it?

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
From a few posts above:

[ QUOTE ]
It is defined Catholic Doctrine that all who die without Baptism (whether it be of water, desire, or martyrdom) will not go to Heaven.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is baptism by desire? I gather, that with baptism by desire, you don't need water? Is there scriptural reference to this concept? Can young children be baptised through desire?

[/ QUOTE ]

Baptism of Desire is an implicit desire for Baptism manifested through perfect contrition of sins and love of God, without receiving the actual sacrament through water. It is the way a person can get to Heaven without being officially baptized into the Catholic Church. In scripture, it is the reconciliation of John 3 and John 14.

It has never been taught that young children can be baptized through desire, because it takes an act of the will. One has to attain the age of reason before making an act of will, and this usually happens around 7 years old. That's why infants who are not baptized cannot go to Heaven. This was reaffirmed by Pope Piux XII.

Also, it is Catholic teaching that no one can be condemned for believing in Limbo, and in fact, Limbo was taught in the Catechism of Pius X and has been believed for centuries, so it is more than just a theory.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is Catholic teaching that no one can be condemned for believing in Limbo, and in fact, Limbo was taught in the Catechism of Pius X and has been believed for centuries, so it is more than just a theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

More than just a theory!? LOL. Evidence, please!

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make a statement like this: "Catholics can believe that unbaptized children go directly to Heaven" is unequivocal heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem they can just decide the ideas about heresy were wrong. After all they've been wrong before.

Its the big advantage of made up stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has never in its history retracted or contradicted defined dogma and doctrine. Whoever would do that is considered a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ok they can change that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they would just start a new church and religion as has been done many times.

[/ QUOTE ]
and you(re religous ancestors) can gradually find themselves in a smaller and smaller rump claiming everyone else will burn as heritics.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church has been doing that since it's inception and has subsequently grown from 13 to over 1 Billion adherents over 2000 years, so I don't think condemnation has hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]
but it would make no difference to you if it was just you and a few others left. would it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha, that would be kind of cool. St. Peter666. As far as the Faith goes, it does not matter whether there are billions of adherents or just a handful. For Catholics, what has been taught by the Church under the authority of Christ must be believed. Everything else is just a temporary condition in time.

[Peter666]

If there is no Limbo, than the alternative is Hell according to Catholic Doctrine. That babies can be spontaneously Baptized is the real speculation, and has been criticized.

I found this timeline and informative article at www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm.)


"Some Church leaders have commented on the fate of unbaptized infants:
4th century CE:
St. Gregory of Nazianzus (circa 329 - circa 390) commented in Orat., XL, 23 that infants dying without baptism "will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked." This was the common view of the early Church Fathers.
bullet Pope St. Siricius insisted on the baptism of infants as well as adults lest "each one of them on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom."
5th century CE: St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) convinced the Council of Carthage (418 CE) to reject the concept of limbo "of any place...in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all." i.e. they go to Hell for eternal punishment, but are not as badly treated as other inmates. According to Revelation 14:10, the infants would be tortured in the presence of Jesus. However, this verse is ambigous about whether Jesus is directing or merely observing the torture.

11th century: St. Anselm (1033 - 1109 CE) supported St. Augustine's belief that "unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned [in Hell]."1
12th century: Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) deviated from St. Augustine by rejecting material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of unbaptized infants for their original sin.
bullet 13th century: St Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), who was the first major theologian to speculate about the existence of a place called limbo. Its name is derived from the Latin limbus which means "hem" or "edge". There, on the edge of heaven, the unbaptised would exist in a state of what he described as "natural happiness".
14th century: Pope John XXII's issued an Epistle to the Armenians in 1321 CE.
Fr. Brian W. Harrison writes that the Epistle, along with two earlier ecumenical councils:

"... teach that the souls of those who die in original sin ... go down without delay into Hell' where, however, they suffer 'different punishments' from those who die in actual mortal sin."

Harrison suggests that this "... could only be infants and the mentally retarded who never reach the use of reason," and who were never baptized. 6 Presumably, the "different punishments" would involve a lighter level of torture of the infants than is experienced by adults who die in moral sin.

15th century:
Later writers, {e.g. Griolamo Savonarola (1452 - 1498) and Ambrose Catharinus (16th century)} believed that "the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection."
The Ecumenical Council of Florence wrote in 1442:

"Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently." 6

16th century:
Cardinal Cajetan speculated that unbaptized newborns, fetuses, etc people may benefit from a "vicarious baptism of desire." i.e. even though an actual baptism may not have occurred, it might have been desired by the parents, or the church or by someone else. A "desired baptism" which had never actually been conducted might have the same power as a real sacrament.
Pope Sixtus V declared in a papal statement that aborted fetuses do not attain the beatific vision in Heaven. From the content of his statement, it appears that newborn and infants who die before being baptized suffer the same fate.

The Council of Trent stated that justification includes the remission of original sin in infants as well as moral sin in adults. They state that justification "cannot take place without the washing of regeneration [i.e. baptism] or the desire for it." Since infants cannot have a desire for baptism, it would appear that only baptism will make it possible for an infant to attain heaven at death.

18th century: A group known as the Jansenists reverted to St. Augustine's belief. They rejected the idea of Limbo in favor of eternal torture of unbaptized infants, etc. in Hell. In response, Pope Pius VI wrote Auctorem Fidei in 1794. It condemned their teaching as being "false, rash, and injurious to Catholic education" because they denied the existence of a place "which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo for children." Pope Pius VI implied that there are two possibilities: that unbaptized infants might spend eternity comfortably in Limbo or they might spend it being tortured in Hell. The Jansenists' denial of the possibility of Limbo was un-Catholic.

19th century: Theologian Heinrich Klee speculated that God might enlighten the infant at the instant of death and enable them to make a decision for or against God.

20th and 21st century Catholic teachings:
1905: Pope Pius X made a definitive declaration confirming the existence of Limbo. However, this was not an infallible statement by the pope:

"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."

1958: The Holy Office (once the Inquisition and now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) was critical of some believers who delayed baptism because of their belief in Limbo. They concluded: "Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible..." (Acta L, 114).

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is Catholic teaching that no one can be condemned for believing in Limbo, and in fact, Limbo was taught in the Catechism of Pius X and has been believed for centuries, so it is more than just a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been believed in for centuries therefore it is more than just a theory. This is absolute trash and completely illogical. Do you actually believe the above? And do you really believe all the additional gibberish that you have sponged off on everyone in this thread? You can't be seriously saying that this drivel is to be taken at face value are you? Not that it matters that much, as I've said before, mythology trumps all in the minds of most people.

Once more it is shown that religion is a disease, a barbaric buffoonery, and a vast and overgrown chimera force feed to the credulous masses.

-Zeno

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is Catholic teaching that no one can be condemned for believing in Limbo, and in fact, Limbo was taught in the Catechism of Pius X and has been believed for centuries, so it is more than just a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been believed in for centuries therefore it is more than just a theory. This is absolute trash and completely illogical. Do you actually believe the above? And do you really believe all the additional gibberish that you have sponged off on everyone in this thread? You can't be seriously saying that this drivel is to be taken at face value are you? Not that it matters that much, as I've said before, mythology trumps all in the minds of most people.

Once more it is shown that religion is a disease, a barbaric buffoonery, and a vast and overgrown chimera force feed to the credulous masses.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

You are free to believe whatever the hell you want. My objective is to show how the new speculation of infant salvation is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Think of it as an intellectual excercise if you don't have the Faith.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is Catholic teaching that no one can be condemned for believing in Limbo, and in fact, Limbo was taught in the Catechism of Pius X and has been believed for centuries, so it is more than just a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been believed in for centuries therefore it is more than just a theory. This is absolute trash and completely illogical. Do you actually believe the above? And do you really believe all the additional gibberish that you have sponged off on everyone in this thread? You can't be seriously saying that this drivel is to be taken at face value are you? Not that it matters that much, as I've said before, mythology trumps all in the minds of most people.

Once more it is shown that religion is a disease, a barbaric buffoonery, and a vast and overgrown chimera force feed to the credulous masses.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

You are free to believe whatever the hell you want. My objective is to show how the new speculation of infant salvation is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Think of it as an intellectual excercise if you don't have the Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fine. But I personally find that other issues are more worthy of my time than to speculate on infant damnation, baptismal theory, and all the attendant ramifications and theological wrangling. Consider this a complete lack of faith on my part. However, I wish you Godspeed in your debate and elucidation of this matter. Obviously, I have nothing more to add and bow out of the discussion.

-Zeno

[Emmitt2222]

Peter,

I'm not huge into getting into debates on this forum, but you are flat out WRONG. The Catholic Church has never stated that baptism is necessary for going to heaven. Please don't state as fact something that is not a fact. You are misrepresenting the Church. If you were somehow being sarcastic and I missed it sorry.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter,

I'm not huge into getting into debates on this forum, but you are flat out WRONG. The Catholic Church has never stated that baptism is necessary for going to heaven. Please don't state as fact something that is not a fact. You are misrepresenting the Church. If you were somehow being sarcastic and I missed it sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you got that information, but it is absolutely incorrect. Necessity of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that information, but it is absolutely incorrect. Necessity of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now a different branch of the church has made a different pronouncement (even backed by the pope, if I'm not mistaken). How do you reconcile that? How does one determine which official catholic pronouncement is true and which official catholic pronouncement is heresy?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that information, but it is absolutely incorrect. Necessity of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now a different branch of the church has made a different pronouncement (even backed by the pope, if I'm not mistaken). How do you reconcile that? How does one determine which official catholic pronouncement is true and which official catholic pronouncement is heresy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being sarcastic here, and my opinion obviously carries little weight on this topic, but wouldn't you say whichever came first? It may sound silly, but I think thats perfectly legitimate. If the Council of Trent made a proclamation that was intended to stand forever, then it is THIS Pope who is wrong.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that information, but it is absolutely incorrect. Necessity of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now a different branch of the church has made a different pronouncement (even backed by the pope, if I'm not mistaken). How do you reconcile that? How does one determine which official catholic pronouncement is true and which official catholic pronouncement is heresy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever is defined first is true. However, what has been said about Limbo by the current Pope or the theological commission does not have the same authority as a defined statement like that above. The problem is that it is giving average Joe Catholic that impression, when in fact it is mere speculation, with less authority than previous pronouncements.

It is a scandal for the Church, and the current Pope and the questionable theological commission should be reprimanded. Unfortunately, there is no one of higher authority to do that, although something may be done in the future by a different Pontiff or Council.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that information, but it is absolutely incorrect. Necessity of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now a different branch of the church has made a different pronouncement (even backed by the pope, if I'm not mistaken). How do you reconcile that? How does one determine which official catholic pronouncement is true and which official catholic pronouncement is heresy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever is defined first is true. However, what has been said about Limbo by the current Pope or the theological commission does not have the same authority as a defined statement like that above. The problem is that it is giving average Joe Catholic that impression, when in fact it is mere speculation, with less authority than previous pronouncements.

It is a scandal for the Church, and the current Pope and the questionable theological commission should be reprimanded. Unfortunately, there is no one of higher authority to do that, although something may be done in the future by a different Pontiff or Council.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoooo! I was right!

[Peter666]

Precisely. Although I should clarify that the current Pope has not denied that Baptism is not necessary for salvation. His opinions on Limbo are giving that impression though, and certain unorthodox members of the Church are running away with it, like the Jesuit quoted above.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever is defined first is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stuck with mistakes for all eternity even when your own authorities have realised the mistake.

It is a trully impressive feat.

chez

[Peter666]

Ok, you said it first, so your authourity trumps mine. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever is defined first is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stuck with mistakes for all eternity even when your own authorities have realised the mistake.

It is a trully impressive feat.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is any other way. When the rules you are talking about aren't revealing truths about reality but instead dictating policy or explaining things that cannot be tested, there is absolutely no reason to leave them open for modification at a later date. It would be inconsistent and unfair if they did.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that information, but it is absolutely incorrect. Necessity of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now a different branch of the church has made a different pronouncement (even backed by the pope, if I'm not mistaken). How do you reconcile that? How does one determine which official catholic pronouncement is true and which official catholic pronouncement is heresy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever is defined first is true. However, what has been said about Limbo by the current Pope or the theological commission does not have the same authority as a defined statement like that above. The problem is that it is giving average Joe Catholic that impression, when in fact it is mere speculation, with less authority than previous pronouncements.

It is a scandal for the Church, and the current Pope and the questionable theological commission should be reprimanded. Unfortunately, there is no one of higher authority to do that, although something may be done in the future by a different Pontiff or Council.

[/ QUOTE ]
If order of proclamation establishes authority how can a future pontiff or council reprimand or rebuke the current pope? Doesnt he have authority by virtue of being first?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever is defined first is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stuck with mistakes for all eternity even when your own authorities have realised the mistake.

It is a trully impressive feat.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is any other way. When the rules you are talking about aren't revealing truths about reality but instead dictating policy or explaining things that cannot be tested, there is absolutely no reason to leave them open for modification at a later date. It would be inconsistent and unfair if they did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not inconsistant to recognise a mistake. Also it doesn't introduce unfairness as if god is fair he wont punish honest mistakes.

Its a bizarre idea that prevents future understanding from superceding the past.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got that information, but it is absolutely incorrect. Necessity of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now a different branch of the church has made a different pronouncement (even backed by the pope, if I'm not mistaken). How do you reconcile that? How does one determine which official catholic pronouncement is true and which official catholic pronouncement is heresy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever is defined first is true. However, what has been said about Limbo by the current Pope or the theological commission does not have the same authority as a defined statement like that above. The problem is that it is giving average Joe Catholic that impression, when in fact it is mere speculation, with less authority than previous pronouncements.

It is a scandal for the Church, and the current Pope and the questionable theological commission should be reprimanded. Unfortunately, there is no one of higher authority to do that, although something may be done in the future by a different Pontiff or Council.

[/ QUOTE ]
If order of proclamation establishes authority how can a future pontiff or council reprimand or rebuke the current pope? Doesnt he have authority by virtue of being first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Future Pope just has to call on the authority of the older Popes, and use that reflected authority on the current Pope.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Future Pope just has to call on the authority of the older Popes, and use that reflected authority on the current Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you want to claim that the church or the pope is some kind of definitive authority how can you? Current pope says "Belief A is essential to be a christian". How do you know it wont be rescinded by a future pope "calling on the authority of older popes"?

It seems to imply that the first pope is the only true, never-to-be-doubted-or-amended authority, which doesnt seem to accord with what catholics believe.

[revots33]

Geez, would it be too much trouble for god to make an appearance and clear this whole limbo thing up, once and for all?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Future Pope just has to call on the authority of the older Popes, and use that reflected authority on the current Pope.

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you want to claim that the church or the pope is some kind of definitive authority how can you? Current pope says "Belief A is essential to be a christian". How do you know it wont be rescinded by a future pope "calling on the authority of older popes"?

It seems to imply that the first pope is the only true, never-to-be-doubted-or-amended authority, which doesnt seem to accord with what catholics believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is Christ who is considered to be the first, true, never amended authority. He left the deposit of Faith, and no Pope can add to these teachings, they can only clarify what Christ originally taught.

So every Catholic doctrine and dogma follows a lineage. It cannot come out of the blue. Nothing previously defined can be contradicted, only clarified. If a contradiction takes place, we have a heretic. If something comes out of the blue, it is not Catholic doctrine or dogma.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it is Christ who is considered to be the first, true, never amended authority. He left the deposit of Faith, and no Pope can add to these teachings, they can only clarify what Christ originally taught.

So every Catholic doctrine and dogma follows a lineage. It cannot come out of the blue. Nothing previously defined can be contradicted, only clarified. If a contradiction takes place, we have a heretic. If something comes out of the blue, it is not Catholic doctrine or dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]
But isnt the current case an example of that clarification process? As far as I am aware Jesus didnt express an opinion on whether unbaptised babies went to heaven or not, such questions require interpretation/clarification. If you are willing to allow the current pope to be in error, why cant a previous pope also have been wrong (or council/commission/whatever)?

[Alex-db]

It sounds like the catholics are in need of a magic 8-ball, where everyone agrees the next spin counts. Not best of 3 or anything.

[revots33]

In the Catholic Church the Pope is supposed to be infallible in matters of church doctrine. SO if one pope says limbo exists, and a future one says it doesn't - how can they be infallible?

[Emmitt2222]

OK, decent amount of confusion here. The pope is not entirely infallible in all that he says. He is only infallible when he says something ex cathedra, which I do not believe this was.

Also, there are different levels of beliefs for catholics. There are beliefs, doctrines and dogmas. Dogmas are basically the only thing that will never be changed and that Catholics must believe without a shadow of a doubt. Anything below dogma can undergo revision over the years to ensure better clarification or if something is proven otherwise. The Church believes that the Holy Spirit is always working in the Church and that revelation can take place over time. It has not all already happened.

Finally, concerning Limbo, the Catholic Catechism says in paragraph 1261 says for babies who have died without baptism [the people who would go into limbo]:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of Holy Baptism."

This paragraph in no way suggests that they are going to limbo and even suggests that we hope God has mercy and lets them go to heaven. This is from the Catechism which outlines all of what Catholics today are to believe. Peter, do you reject Vatican II?

I have been a Catholic my whole life. More recently I have questioned everything and would consider myself agnostic. I'm not sure if Catholicism is true or not. But if it is true, then you have to follow what the Church says. Peter, you can't just believe that the whole Church is passing down beliefs that are corrupt. Even when the Church had corrupt popes they were not declaring anything ex cathedra wrong. Jesus said he would never leave his Church and if you believe that you can't think they the whole Papacy is going to hell for this. It's contradictory.

[ConstantineX]

Doesn't the very fact the Catholic Church dabbled in indulgences when the pope was speaking ex cathedra invalidate any claims of the Church (or Pope) as an absolute morale authority?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Many in the Vatican will burn for perpetuating heresy. It is defined Catholic Doctrine that all who die without Baptism (whether it be of water, desire, or martyrdom) will not go to Heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Even Not Ready believes that Christians will not be denied heaven merely because they (erroneously in his view) think that sometimes non Christians get in.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of Holy Baptism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow with waffling like that they should be politicians. "Allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism?" Um, how about we re-phrase the question: do unbaptized infants go to heaven or not?

My guess is no, thus the last sentence about the urgency of getting the infant baptized, and quick.

Then again maybe it's yes. Depends on who you ask and which way the wind's blowing.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of Holy Baptism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow with waffling like that they should be politicians. "Allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism?" Um, how about we re-phrase the question: do unbaptized infants go to heaven or not?

My guess is no, thus the last sentence about the urgency of getting the infant baptized, and quick.

Then again maybe it's yes. Depends on who you ask and which way the wind's blowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of Holy Baptism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow with waffling like that they should be politicians. "Allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism?" Um, how about we re-phrase the question: do unbaptized infants go to heaven or not?

My guess is no, thus the last sentence about the urgency of getting the infant baptized, and quick.

Then again maybe it's yes. Depends on who you ask and which way the wind's blowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a correct interpretation. They are trying to make a square circle. The current Catholic Church has been waffling on subjects due to the weaknesses of its clergy.

I contend that the modern Catholic Church since Vatican II is in a serious crises because its leaders are worldly, unfaithful to its teachings and precepts, and some are even heretics.

Emmitt2222 asked if I reject the Second Vatican Council. The short answer is no. There isn't much to reject because the council itself was not a dogmatic council interested in defining doctrines or dogmas. As Pope Paul VI said, it is a pastoral Council giving suggestions. The problem is that the modern clergy have used that as an excuse to spread their heretical ideas. The statistical results speak for themselves. Post Vatican II, vocations to the Catholic religious life have plummeted, the Churches are empty and closing, and pedophiles have emerged in the place of priests.

If children will go to Heaven without Baptism, then you don't really need to baptize them, do you? And if you don't need to baptize them, you don't really need to go to Church to do it etc.

This current teaching on Limbo is an example of the unorthodox hierarchy undermining their own Church.

What many Catholics don't know about Benedict XVI is that he was on a list of theologians suspected of heresy prior to Vatican II. Unfortunately, those suspected of heresy took over the Church before anything could be done about it!!

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the very fact the Catholic Church dabbled in indulgences when the pope was speaking ex cathedra invalidate any claims of the Church (or Pope) as an absolute morale authority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indulgences are a widely misunderstood topic. When a Pope follows the process to speak ex cathedra, he is guaranteed infallibility regardless of other circumstances.