Purgatory in Gehenna?

[phil19034]

What do you mean by “he messed up Limbo”?

 

[CampionTheChampion]

Limbo has essentially been abandoned by the magisterium. The past few popes have not spoken well of it. JPII even published this document.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So there is great hope that unbaptized infants are saved.

 

[phil19034]

Limbo has essentially been abandoned by the magisterium. The past few popes have not spoken well of it. JPII even published this document.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So there is great hope that unbaptized infants are saved.

Well, Limbo was never “abandoned” because it was never “accepted” as doctrine to begin with.

It is and always has been a theological theory.

The Church does not say Limbo is wrong, the Church is simply saying now “that we place our trust in God’s Mercy” instead of attempting to debate which theories are correct when there is no way to know until we die.

 

[mythbuster1]

Doubtless they are, but one of the torments of Hell is the company of the damned, including demons.

 

[CampionTheChampion]

I think the possible is negligible at this point.

 

[CampionTheChampion]

People for hundreds of years would also argue that we should burn heretics. So what?

 

[joeybaggz]

And another point. You say my post is strange because I question traditional Catholic teaching. Joeybaggz, how many traditional Catholic teaching do you reject? I bet if you were honest you’d realize you reject a great many. Just because a teaching is found in tradition doesn’t mean it’s true.

I don’t reject any! I just recognize the difference between an “infallible teaching” and “teaching infallibly” and my understanding of the difference.

But maybe we shouldn’t continue talking. I mean “Face it, nothing is going to persuade you.”

I would absolutely be persuaded by the truth. As to the questions and opinions of others, who knows? But I will assure you that I wouldn’t immediate swallow a position or thoght in direct opposition to an accepted teaching of the church that has been in place for centuries.

 

[CampionTheChampion]

Wow. Disturbing you relegate that to an issue of prudence and not moral atrocity.

 

[CampionTheChampion]

just recognize the difference between an “infallible teaching” and “teaching infallibly” and my understanding of the difference.

What difference do you have in mind?

 

[joeybaggz]

What difference do you have in mind?
[/quote]

The nature of each. For instance, the doctrine of the Assumption is an infallible teaching. It is something every RC must accept. The teaching on artificial birth control, is taught infallibly, meaning it is not wrong. Infallibility, oc course, being that charism of the Holy Spirit that the church will never teach error. But it not an infallible teaching, it was never presented “from the Chair of Peter” nor by a unanimous proclamation by the entire college of bishops. Therefore, I will act in accordance with my understanding that the teaching is solid but subject to further revelation and interpretation by the Church. Same with things like the death penalty, just war, and a host of other teachings that are not proclaimed infallibly.

 

[CampionTheChampion]

I found this from St. Thomas Aquinas today, and I thought it was very relevant for this thread.

On the contrary, Gregory says [*The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: “Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.AP2_Q1_A2.html