I address your questions, in turn. There were several posed,
in your post. [Those following the thread may view your entire
post, by clicking the right arrow, in the blue box, above.]
quote: estesbob
I do.
Baltimore Catechism days. I was required to memorize the
definition of ‘Limbo.’ As I often say, Limbo was the most
official ‘unofficial’ teaching. It was speculation, but it was taught
as something to believe in, and was to be memorized.
So much for ‘unofficial.’
Anyone who questions whether same was taught, in the Baltimore Catechism, to millions of children, in the parochial school system of the day, may check same out - on the web. Those inglorious volumes are online, happily.
As to Limbo, I started a thread on same, a few weeks
back - including the darling earlier view of Augustine, on the
eternal destination of an unbaptized infant:
Post # 9 forward
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…ghlight=reen12
As far as
Limbus Infantium and
Limbus Patrum, here’s a link
to an edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, printed in the
opening years of the 20th century. Not a dull paragraph in this
article.
It cites the early, winsome view, of Augustine - on the
eternal fate of an unbaptized infant. He later came around to
a place of ‘natural happiness,’ having earlier consigned the
infant - lacking saving waters - to the 'postive punishments of
the damned." Isn’t that sweet?
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Quote: estesbob
There’s not a single thing that’s ‘simple,’ in this regard.
I shall now expatiate on the topic:
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
As a matter of fact, if one checks with the relatively* new* CCC - one will* still* find reference - to the ‘urgent’ nature of having infants baptized. Why? Why this urgency?
Do I sense a faint whiff of Limbo…still?
Checking the Vatican website, in terms of the CCC:
**1261 **
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,"63 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.
They’re still at it, as far as I can note.
The CC
still seems unsure - of the fate and eternal destination of unbaptized infants, who have passed away.
What should be a no-brainer, is subject to endless maunderings, still. But that’s what happens, when an ecclesial entity chooses to weave a net of infallible ‘doctrines.’
They get caught…in their own net.
Those named to be ‘fishers of men’ - end up entwined in their own ‘net’ - like a kitten with a ball of string. To the point where a simple declaritive sentence can’t be written - to assure one and all - that an unbaptized infant, who passes away, goes directly to the heart of God.
Yet, as I said, I addressed the matter of limbo, on the CAF thread that I linked to, above.
The Vatican link - on happy hopes -that an unbaptized infant
may go to heaven, is found here.
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…nfants_en.html
Quote: estesbob
No gentile need convert to Judaism - to be welcome in
Olam haba, the World to Come. St.Paul chose to paint the
mitzvoth as a burden.
In Orthodox Judaism, this is simply not the case. In fact, a
story comes to mind, in relation to this.
A good and holy rabbi was on the verge of death. He was
weeping. When those around him saw this, one of those present
asked him:
“Rabbi, you have led a good and holy life. Why should you be
worried about
Olam haba?”
The old man replied:
“I am weeping, because in
Olam haba, I will not be able to
show my love of HaShem by keeping His law.”
And from the psalms.
I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches*.*
Psalm 119: 14
So much for the law as a ‘burden.’ Saul evidently felt that the
law was a burden, but he seems to have comprised a party of one, in that regard. Saul had other fish to fry - retaining
piscatorial metaphor.
I ‘did’ apologetics for decades, challenging mis-statements of
Catholic beliefs and practice. One doesn’t have to agree with
a theology to defend it.
In illo tempore, we took at least 2 years of Latin.
Isn’t that nice? While we’re at it, can anyone - following this
thread - define the distinction between concupiscence -
and the Judaic* yetzers*?
reen12
And then he went on to show us exactly how to do it at the Last Supper, “This is my body, this is my blood” and he distributed it to his disciples and told them to do it in his memory.