Is Limbo a Capital 'T' Tradition & de fide?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Iambic_Pen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TNT said:
  1. If the parents are in a sane conditon and
  2. They will be available before the infant does die.
    The answer is NO.
    Otherwise have at it.
    Jis have a card printed up n handy so’s ya can read it. You know how you get flustered.
Click to expand...
Not me. I never get flustered doing my job. But the card is a good idea for you, should you ever need one. 😉 Ya never know.
 
TNT said:
I dun it s many times, I got it mezmorized.
Click to expand...
I didn’t take you seriously before about having to clear out those death threats, but now, I dunno…maybe you did have some. 😉
 
TNT said:
Does a circus have peanuts?
Click to expand...
Maybe, but they also get locked around here. We should get back on track, 'cause this is a good thread. Don’t want to wake up and see it padlocked.
 
paramedicgirl said:
Maybe, but they also get locked around here. We should get back on track, 'cause this is a good thread. Don’t want to wake up and see it padlocked.
Click to expand...
Not to worry. The moderators go t sleep at midnite.
Jis behave after sun up. That’s when they wake up.
Which proves, against the accusations of others, they ain’t vampires after all.
Besides I converted most o the posters.
Not much left t do, really. The others are hardcore anti’s. Prayer’s all that’s left.
 
TNT said:
Since all proof otherwise will not change your mind
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Proof from the Church would change my mind but as the Church actually teaches, Limbo is a theological speculation. This is proven by the fact that it is solely a Western creation.

I will stand with what the Church says rather than your interpretation on this matter, thank you.
 
Obviously, there is disagreement here. I, with my limited knowledge and with my intellect damaged by my fallen nature, am incapable of searching through all of this and making an absolute decision. I must echo what ByzCath said:
ByzCath said:
You are wrong. Proof from the Church would change my mind but as the Church actually teaches, Limbo is a theological speculation. This is proven by the fact that it is solely a Western creation.

I will stand with what the Church says rather than your interpretation on this matter, thank you.
Click to expand...
If the pope and the bishops in communion with him are on one side and a few dissenters are on the other, I will side with the former. If I am not going to trust the authority of the Church, why enter it in the first place?

If I refuse to accept the authority of the pope, and I believe that Church councils (such as Vatican II) can be disregarded or overruled by the laity, I might as well become Orthodox. It is a tempting enough idea as it is.

I love the Latin Mass, and I am greatly disheartened by what the modernists have often done with the Novus Ordo Mass. As such, I have a great sympathy with the traditionalist viewpoint. However, when they begin the deny the authority of the Church, I must part ways with them. I don’t intend to join the Church and then immediately rebel against it from within.

God bless!
 
All I have been reading is that the Pope apparently authorized this document on limbo. This has been going on since 2005—yet no document to date has been published. I do remember that our Pope in a meeting with the theologians–did warn them to not prostitute themselves to please popular opinion. I am getting the feeling these theologians–by having the statements released–that the document has been approved—are trying to strong arm the Pope to give in.
 
Walking_Home said:
All I have been reading is that the Pope apparently authorized this document on limbo. This has been going on since 2005—yet no document to date has been published. I do remember that our Pope in a meeting with the theologians–did warn them to not prostitute themselves to please popular opinion. I am getting the feeling these theologians–by having the statements released–that the document has been approved—are trying to strong arm the Pope to give in.
Click to expand...
I thought it was reported that he signed it.
 
Walking_Home said:
I am getting the feeling these theologians–by having the statements released–that the document has been approved—are trying to strong arm the Pope to give in.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article that JKirk posted? It quotes Ratzinger as having said in The Ratzinger Report twenty-some years ago that, “Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally – and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation – I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism. …. One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for the faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.” (emphasis mine)

Doesn’t really sound to me like he would have needed to be strong-armed into this. Our Holy Father is a wise, perceptive and balanced theologian, and I’d reckon he came to this conclusion without any pressure placed upon him.
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
Did you read the article that JKirk posted? It quotes Ratzinger as having said in The Ratzinger Report twenty-some years ago that, “Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally – and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation – I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism. …. One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for the faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.” (emphasis mine)

Doesn’t really sound to me like he would have needed to be strong-armed into this. Our Holy Father is a wise, perceptive and balanced theologian, and I’d reckon he came to this conclusion without any pressure placed upon him.
Click to expand...
He also said the following–in his Wednesday audience on Clement of Alexandria.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106189

Code: ZE07041801

Date: 2007-04-18

On Clement of Alexandria

“One of the Great Promoters of Dialogue Between Faith and Reason”

Christ himself later becomes the “educator,” that is, the “instructor” of those who, by virtue of baptism, have become sons and daughters of God. Christ himself, finally, is also “Didascalo,” that is, the “Teacher,” who proposes the deepest teachings. These are collected in Clement’s third work, “The Stromata,” a Greek word meaning “miscellanies.” It is a composition that is not systematic, but rather deals with various arguments, and is the direct fruit of the ordinary teaching of Clement.
 
What’s going on here is that our Holy Father sees that there is a very important distinction to be made between:

-staying true to our beliefs on Baptism and eternal salvation

and

-believing that limbo is the only possible logical conclusion to be made, taking into consideration our Catholic beliefs regarding Baptism and eternal salvation

He is pointing out that the logical syllogism by which one arrives at the limbo hypothesis is a faulty and improper use of logic. It presupposes a level of rigidity in our teachings regarding Baptism/salvation which does not exist, is not legitimately Catholic and to which God is not bound. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the “logical” process involved in arriving at the theological hypothesis of limbo stems from a common misinterpretation of the Catholic beliefs regarding Baptism and salvation.

Basically, the rejection of limbo does not affect or threaten the imporance of baptism, nor (as notorious dissenter Father Richard McBrian would have us believe) does the rejection of limbo threaten or nullify our beliefs regarding original sin.

There is nothing heterodox, illogical, or inconsistent going on here as Pope Benedict rejects the limbo hypothesis. He is merely brushing a few cobwebs out of the toolshed.
 
What Pope Benedict himself–declares now is what matters–not what was said 20 years ago.
 
Walking_Home said:
What Pope Benedict himself–declares now is what matters–not what was said 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
True, but I would like respectfully to add that since limbo is not de fide, we’re already quite free to reject the hypothesis on an individual basis.
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
True, but I would like respectfully to add that since limbo is not de fide, we’re already quite free to reject the hypothesis on an individual basis.
Click to expand...
Interesting—it was de fide when limbo was taught to me in the 60’s, It was de fide when it was taught to my parents before me, it was de fide when it was taught to my grandparents, great-grandparents-- and going back before them. They were not “quite free” to reject it.
 
Have you seen how ignorant many catechists are of even the fundamentals of the faith these days? Even priests and nuns who should know much better?

What makes you think they weren’t occasionally ignorant in the past? There are more than enough ill-educated pre-Vatican2 Catholics walking around to suggest that this was the case. Or, also a possibility, subject to something of a misinformation campaign to scare them into making sure their kids were baptised?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top