Limbo as Dogma?

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
How do we get from pt A to pt B (taking an idea too far). Start by implanting a “new ideology”/ a “new understanding” into the minds of the people. God loves us all – so how could the unbaptised infants be denied heaven. Heresy has its beginning.

Doesn’t something have to go against Church teaching to be heresy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…t=Neocatechume

Quote=itsjustdave1988
I didn’t really like the way they portrayed the Church up until Vatican II as having lost touch with early Christianity. They seem to suggest that infant baptism and catechesis of those baptized as children was some kind of innovation in the Catholic Church, which I disagree with.

Quote=itsjustdave1988
Since I only attended day one of their seminar, I don’t remember that it was discussed. Their suggestion that the early church didn’t baptize infants made me skeptical of their orthodoxy. I presume that they just mispoke or phrased it poorly.

Anyone who doesn’t believe in infant baptism is simply ignorant. I’m afraid that I can’t understand how this is connected.

---

Getting from pt. A to pt. B. How to get a body of believers to move away from what they once held to something other. Plant a seed – a new “understanding/ideology” with the potential of maturing into a different belief.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Try reading the whole thread please, and see certain posters who were strongly implying that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were being heretical/modernist for their stance.

Commenting on something when you don’t even know the context is rather pointless :yawn:

Ah, Arnobius, back up to your old tricks I see…sigh

 

[Arnobius]

Ah, Arnobius, back up to your old tricks I see…sigh

No, merely reaffirming what I said before… when one puts one’s personal interpretation first and makes the documents of the Church and the orthodoxy of the Pope subject to said personal interpretation, one makes oneself the arbiter of what the Church should be.

I remain unimpressed by your claims however and find them taken out of context.

But don’t worry, I won’t be staying. I realize I am wasting my time here and see there is no real point in continuing this discussion

 

[surgei]

---

The teaching of limbo was not based on despair --but on the basis of a just and merciful God. That was a far as the Church could go without overstepping on revealed Truth. Now it is coming down to pitting what we know of God (what He reveal to us) against what we don’t know of God and filling in the blanks.

Limbo is an overstep into the realm of unrevealed. It belongs to the field of theology called speculative. It really is a great deal like the question “Can God make a rock so large that even he couldn’t move it.”
Limbo is a teaching based on dispair of the human condition. It is based on the wrong understanding of Adams sin and its relation to us. As such it steps on the revealed truth of Gods love for each human and justice by passing the eternal penalty for one mans sin on to another.
Why is it RC’s would condem the idea that I could go to hell or limbo because of the sin of my father and yet send me to hell or limbo because of the sin of my great great great… grandfather Adam?

 

[Conservative]

So you deny the papal dogma of origonal sin?

Surgei -

I’ll step in - not seeing stringbean replying…He/She seems to be making a similar assumption. While the unborn have original sin on them, a fact I don’t believe any of us deny or dispute, it’s still a fact that - while the impurity of original sin must be cleansed to enter Heaven, the unborn have not entered into this world to ***willfully commit ***any sins.

It is in this that we must rely and trust in the mercy of God. I don’t see it possible that He would judge these unborn souls as unworthy. As I type this, the thought occurs to me - that perhaps, just waiting until the Final Judgement - a VERY long time for those innocents who have already been in Limbo for centuries perhaps, might in itself be their cleansing. Just think a minute - what about all those unborns who died before Our Lord’s Crucifixion and Resurrection. They weren’t baptized either.

I know the Bible says “unless ye be born of the water and the spirit”…but in the case of these innocents - it is God who decides. May they attain Eternal Glory.

 

[surgei]

Surgei -

I’ll step in - not seeing stringbean replying…He/She seems to be making a similar assumption. While the unborn have original sin on them, a fact I don’t believe any of us deny or dispute, it’s still a fact that - while the impurity of original sin must be cleansed to enter Heaven, the unborn have not entered into this world to ***willfully commit ***any sins.

It is in this that we must rely and trust in the mercy of God. I don’t see it possible that He would judge these unborn souls as unworthy. As I type this, the thought occurs to me - that perhaps, just waiting until the Final Judgement - a VERY long time for those innocents who have already been in Limbo for centuries perhaps, might in itself be their cleansing. Just think a minute - what about all those unborns who died before Our Lord’s Crucifixion and Resurrection. They weren’t baptized either.

I know the Bible says “unless ye be born of the water and the spirit”…but in the case of these innocents - it is God who decides. May they attain Eternal Glory.

I think you see the problem with your understanding of Adamic sin. Not only does this affect all those infants before Jesus it affects all those adults before Jesus as well. It also affects the state of the invincible ignorant. How can God put an Auca indian into hell who had no way of knowing the redemption on Jesus Christ? Is this an act from God’s eternal essance of Love?

 

[lukewarm]

I’ve struggled with the same question and never came to an adequate conclusion, if Limbo was taught at several ecumenical councils and by several Popes how is it just “a theological concept” albeit one that was taught and believed by the Universal Church for over 1,000 years. I don’t see how turning from Limbus Infantum isn’t changing Church doctrine myself.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Limbo is an overstep into the realm of unrevealed. It belongs to the field of theology called speculative. It really is a great deal like the question “Can God make a rock so large that even he couldn’t move it.”
Limbo is a teaching based on dispair of the human condition. It is based on the wrong understanding of Adams sin and its relation to us. As such it steps on the revealed truth of Gods love for each human and justice by passing the eternal penalty for one mans sin on to another.
Why is it RC’s would condem the idea that I could go to hell or limbo because of the sin of my father and yet send me to hell or limbo because of the sin of my great great great… grandfather Adam?

This thread was NOT designed to argue over the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views of Original Sin vs. First Sin vs. Ancestral Sin, etc. If you wish to discuss this, start a thread in the Non-Catholic forum. This thread was designed to argue about Limbo, NOT the Eastern Orthodox view of Original Sin, and hence Limbo. If I wanted to know the Eastern Orthodox opinions on Limbo, I would have posted it in the non-Catholic forum. Catholics believe in Original Sin, and this thread presupposes that one holds to the Catholic view of Original Sin. If you don’t agree with this, start your own thread, do not take this one off topic.

 

[surgei]

This thread was NOT designed to argue over the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views of Original Sin vs. First Sin vs. Ancestral Sin, etc. If you wish to discuss this, start a thread in the Non-Catholic forum. This thread was designed to argue about Limbo, NOT the Eastern Orthodox view of Original Sin, and hence Limbo. If I wanted to know the Eastern Orthodox opinions on Limbo, I would have posted it in the non-Catholic forum. Catholics believe in Original Sin, and this thread presupposes that one holds to the Catholic view of Original Sin. If you don’t agree with this, start your own thread, do not take this one off topic.

Original Sin is an integral part of the doctrine of Limbo. I am not arguing the Eastern Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin. I am pointing out the historic Roman Catholic perception of the topic at hand. Pre-schismatic may it be, it is still a part of the Roman Catholic faith. Like it or not, there are those who are in full sacramental communion with Rome do not hold to these “theologic developments” and keep to the apostolic faith. If you find that to be Eastern Orthodox… Look deeper into the Roman Catholic teachings. You will find we were once of one flesh, of one mind.

 

[SemperFidelis]

You said this:

It is based on the wrong understanding of Adams sin and its relation to us.

And this:

I think you see the problem with your understanding of Adamic sin.

I thought you weren’t arguing the Eastern Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin? Seems like according to the above, that you are most certaintly at least questioning the Catholic position on Original Sin.

I am not arguing the Eastern Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin.

Read above. Almost every post you’ve made on this thread has tried to question and refute the Catholic view of Original Sin, and thus has implicitly purposed that Catholics should hold to the Eastern Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin. Yes Original Sin is an integral part of Limbo, but just as I don’t care or wish to hear the position of the Eastern Orthodox on Limbo, I don’t care or wish to hear the Eastern Orthodox position on Original Sin, or else I would have asked it in the NON-CATHOLIC FORUM. Original Sin as has been expressed on this thread is a Dogma of the Faith, and it would go against the Faith that we have been given to change it to something that resembles what the Eastern Orthodox think. In trying to bring down Limbo, you are trying to bring down the Catholic understanding of Original Sin, which no Catholic here has tried to do. This is taking the thread off-topic, as I never intented to discuss anything relating to the topic of something other than the CATHOLIC positition on Original Sin as it pertains to Limbo. The only time Original Sin should come up on this thread is in explaining how Original Sin could somehow be removed for those who have not had the chance to receive Baptism, either by water, desire, or blood. Once again, start a new thread if you like.

 

[surgei]

I thought you weren’t arguing the Eastern Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin? Seems like according to the above, that you are most certaintly at least questioning the Catholic position on Original Sin.
Read above. Almost every post you’ve made on this thread has tried to question and refute the Catholic view of Original Sin, and thus has implicitly purposed that Catholics should hold to the Eastern Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin. Yes Original Sin is an integral part of Limbo, but just as I don’t care or wish to hear the position of the Eastern Orthodox on Limbo, I don’t care or wish to hear the Eastern Orthodox position on Original Sin, or else I would have asked it in the NON-CATHOLIC FORUM. Original Sin as has been expressed on this thread is a Dogma of the Faith, and it would go against the Faith that we have been given to change it to something that resembles what the Eastern Orthodox think. In trying to bring down Limbo, you are trying to bring down the Catholic understanding of Original Sin, which no Catholic here has tried to do. This is taking the thread off-topic, as I never intented to discuss anything relating to the topic of something other than the CATHOLIC positition on Original Sin as it pertains to Limbo. The only time Original Sin should come up on this thread is in explaining how Original Sin could somehow be removed for those who have not had the chance to receive Baptism, either by water, desire, or blood. Once again, start a new thread if you like.

As you are not yet a Roman Catholic I cannot expect you to know the fulness of what your church teaches. The Churches sui juris of the orrient that are in full communion with the Roman Pontif are not held in anathema when they take the position that I do. Why? Because it is they are holding fast to the tradition taught them.
Please do not confuse my current state as an Orthodox Christian with the thought that I do not know the Roman Catholic position. I have sat under your greatest teachers and called them “my father”. I have served your bishops. I have propagated these corruptions of Catholic faith not knowing them to be corruptions just as you do now.
The Dogma of Original Sin is not the eternal condemnation of all men as a result of Adam. Look it up yourself. May I suggest you do so in Fr. John Hardons Catholic dictionairy. He was the Calcutta Saint’s spiritual father before he was mine.
As this is an open forum please understand that I will share openly. If you don’t want to read what I have to say, then don’t read what I have to say.
BTW As I was Chrismated by a Roman Catholic priest of the Ukrainian particular church. According to the teachers of your church I am a lapsed Roman Catholic.
According to your own Roman Pontiff Benedict XVI the term Catholic is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church. As such discussion of the Eastern Orthodox does not belong under the heading of non Catholic.
If you want to derail the work of the man you are putting yourself under, that is derail communion with the Orthodox worked for so hard by the current pope, keep it up. You are giving me pleanty of reason to discourage my bishop from joining talks. Your bishops might be coming back to their apostolic faith, but if their people don’t their is not point.

 

[palmas85]

As you are not yet a Roman Catholic I cannot expect you to know the fulness of what your church teaches. The Churches sui juris of the orrient that are in full communion with the Roman Pontif are not held in anathema when they take the position that I do. Why? Because it is they are holding fast to the tradition taught them.
Please do not confuse my current state as an Orthodox Christian with the thought that I do not know the Roman Catholic position. I have sat under your greatest teachers and called them “my father”. I have served your bishops. I have propagated these corruptions of Catholic faith not knowing them to be corruptions just as you do now.
The Dogma of Original Sin is not the eternal condemnation of all men as a result of Adam. Look it up yourself. May I suggest you do so in Fr. John Hardons Catholic dictionairy. He was the Calcutta Saint’s spiritual father before he was mine.
As this is an open forum please understand that I will share openly. If you don’t want to read what I have to say, then don’t read what I have to say.
BTW As I was Chrismated by a Roman Catholic priest of the Ukrainian particular church. According to the teachers of your church I am a lapsed Roman Catholic.
According to your own Roman Pontiff Benedict XVI the term Catholic is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church. As such discussion of the Eastern Orthodox does not belong under the heading of non Catholic.
If you want to derail the work of the man you are putting yourself under, that is derail communion with the Orthodox worked for so hard by the current pope, keep it up. You are giving me pleanty of reason to discourage my bishop from joining talks. Your bishops might be coming back to their apostolic faith, but if their people don’t their is not point.

That you are a lapsed Roman Catholic doesn’t really surprise me from the tone of your remarks concerning Catholicism.

It may be said in all honesty that the Orthodox hold fast to some traditions andbeliefs that are valid. It may also be said that they hold fast to other traditions and beliefs that are not valid.

The point of re-unification is not that Roman Catholics become Orthodox and never has been except in the minds of the Orthodox. If you think that it is or ever was then you are 100% wrong.

I don’t really think re-unification will ever come about until the Orthodox first accept the Holy Father as head of the Church in all areas. Not as first among equals which appears to be about as far as they are willing to go. I don’t really see the Orthodox Bishops doing that although we can all hope that one day their eyes are opened.

That being said there are also numerous theological beliefs which I don’t think the Roman Church is going to abandon to gain re-unification nor should they.

Tell you , why don’t you guys abandon your erroneous positions and come back to the Holy Mother Church? It seems to be what you want us to do and what you constantly advocate here…

 

[SemperFidelis]

As you are not yet a Roman Catholic I cannot expect you to know the fulness of what your church teaches.

Yes you can. Not to be egotistical or arrogant, but I am probably more studied than most Catholics are regarding Catholicism. I am also quite studied regarding the theology of the Eastern Churches. So try me.

Please do not confuse my current state as an Orthodox Christian with the thought that I do not know the Roman Catholic position.

I never did…

As this is an open forum please understand that I will share openly. If you don’t want to read what I have to say, then don’t read what I have to say.

Yes, this is an open forum, but it is against forum rules to take a thread off-topic. The intent of this thread is not to argue over the Catholic position of Original Sin, but to argue whether Original Sin (as Catholics understand it) is possibly removed for those who don’t have voluntary sin, but who have also not been baptized and cannot have the desire of such ie: Limbo and Infants.

As such discussion of the Eastern Orthodox does not belong under the heading of non Catholic.

Well then, call Catholic Answers and tell them that the Eastern Orthodox don’t belong in the non-Catholic forum like they currently are.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Yes you can. Not to be egotistical or arrogant, but I am probably more studied than most Catholics are regarding Catholicism…

I agree. I actually thought you were already a Catholic. I wish more Catholics new the faith as well as you.

 

[lukewarm]

I thought about converting to Orthodoxy but I didn’t find much of the beliefs any different, especially since I was struggling with idol worship (graven images), and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and no converison to Orthodoxy was going to solve that. And while I found the RCC teachings on the Papacy untenable I found the Orthodox position equally untenable if not more so.

Honestly the Orthodox Church seemed like a museum to me, there was no spirituality, the Churches I visited were very nationalistic and divisive. It was a cold place to me, there was no reason to convert at the end of the day.

Sorry to hijack the Dogma thread but the topic is already onto Orthodoxy.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I agree. I actually thought you were already a Catholic. I wish more Catholics new the faith as well as you.

Thank you Pax, and God Bless!

 

[surgei]

I thought about converting to Orthodoxy but I didn’t find much of the beliefs any different, especially since I was struggling with idol worship (graven images), and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and no converison to Orthodoxy was going to solve that. And while I found the RCC teachings on the Papacy untenable I found the Orthodox position equally untenable if not more so.

Honestly the Orthodox Church seemed like a museum to me, there was no spirituality, the Churches I visited were very nationalistic and divisive. It was a cold place to me, there was no reason to convert at the end of the day.

Sorry to hijack the Dogma thread but the topic is already onto Orthodoxy.

Sorry to hear that was your experiance. Orthodox spirituality is very monastic. In that way it is similar in flavor to the pre Vatican II aproach to things.

What is drawing you to historic Christian teaching anyway?

 

[Cristiano]

I look at this argument somewhat differently than do most. Most people see souls as somewhat like themselves. They don’t see the soul as being intrinsically any different than we as humans are, basically the same thing in another form. I don’t. That is why I think that baptism is so very vital to salvation… Our bodies are hopelessly corrupted as are our souls corrupted by the fall of man. But our bodies do not go to heaven, our souls do. Baptism does not cleanse the body and make it pure, . rather it cleanses the soul and enables it to come into the presence of God.

I apologize for quoting such an early post but this has been bugging me for a while. Are you are you saying that we are not going to have glorified bodies? Are you saying that the soul and the body will be separated for ever? What do you mean when you say that our bodies do not go to heaven?

Of course we will have glorified bodies, but not at the initial judgment after death. It will happen after the last judgment, when there are only Heaven and Hell, and we are in Heaven, God willing!

Regarding limbo, no, it was never dogma, maybe not even doctrine, but remember the “development of doctrine”. Beliefs can be expanded or clarified over the centuries.

It was a general question for the readers of the forum but it was specifically addressed to palmas85. Because he presented it as a de facto statement. To me that is appears to be quite off from the understanding of human nature before and after death. I know of at least three people that have been bodily assumed into Heaven.

 

[palmas85]

It was a general question for the readers of the forum but it was specifically addressed to palmas85. Because he presented it as a de facto statement. To me that is appears to be quite off from the understanding of human nature before and after death. I know of at least three people that have been bodily assumed into Heaven.

Well, at least two of them never sinned either, as I assume you are speaking of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and Elijah.

 

[surgei]

Well, at least two of them never sinned either, as I assume you are speaking of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and Elijah.

Two of those died.
Obviously one is Christ.
The other is the Mother of God. Look to the hymnography of the early church for that. Also it is implied in the Papal statement on the feast day.