Red Flag Not to Convert: Recent Limbo Thing

[Saint_Michael]

The infallibility doctrine says that belief is required IF it is proclaimed “ex Cathedra” . The doctrine has to be formally proclaimed as true and a doctrine of faith. Limbo was NEVER declared in such a manner, even though it may appear in some documents or in some “BULLS” or in some churhc councils. It was never proclaimed as an infalliable dogma.

IF it had been, it would have to believed. It was NOT, so anyone can believe what they want about it. You may argue all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it was NEVER declared an offical dogma requried to be believed by all.

So could Catholics choose not to believe in the Immaculate Conception prior to the 1800’s. In fact the only things ever pronounce “ex cathedra” are Mary’s Ascension, and the Immacualte Conception. So am I free to abandon all other Catholic doctrines?

The Catechism says brith control is wrong, but it was never declared ex-cathedra, am I free to not believe that isn’t a doctrine of the Church I amrequired to believe and adhere to?

Your explanation isn’t jiving at all.

 

[tequilamac]

Well that’s all I’ve ever gotten, “it’s not a doctrine and never was a doctrine”, I’ve never actually seen anyone refute the councils, and papal bulls, or the fact it was taught as apostolic tradition for nearly two millenia, and now is going kaput.

Forget it, I give up, I’ll never get a good answer and it is time to simple accept that. The only answer EVER given is “you need to study more (ad hominem to avoid the actual data provided), limbo is not and has never been a doctrine of the Church”…

When people talk about what is doctrine and what is not doctrine, they are usually speaking from a standpoint of ignorance or something they read in Catholic Today magazine. The point is the Pope is free to discuss, negate, change or re-direct anything, anything, anything at all that is not an article of faith that must be professed to under pain of sin. Period. Abortion as wrong is now an infallible doctrine and an article of faith that you MUST believe in order to be Catholic. That is an example of infallible doctrine that must be believed and cannot be changed. If you believe otherwise about abortion you will be excommunicated sooner or later. But Limbo? No. No one is required to believe it, required to profess it and it is not infallible so it is open to discussion.

I love this when anti CAtholics do this. They go into misinterpretations of doctrine, significance of bulls and encyclicals, and wax on historically all about stuff that usually isn’t even an article of faith to begin with. It is a way to catch Catholics up and trap em. Because catholics themselves forget that there is a difference between popular belief, doctrine and an article of faith. All that matters in the end, now, before or after, is what was professed as an article of faith. All the rest is icing on the cake, period.

 

[Saint_Michael]

I love this when anti CAtholics do this. They go into misinterpretations of doctrine, significance of bulls and encyclicals, and wax on historically all about stuff that usually isn’t even an article of faith to begin with. It is a way to catch Catholics up and trap em. Because catholics themselves forget that there is a difference between popular belief, doctrine and an article of faith. All that matters in the end, now, before or after, is what was professed as an article of faith. All the rest is icing on the cake, period.

The old standyby, make no points actually talking about the councils and papal bulls, simply call me an anti-Catholic and be done with it.

Just think a little more than three weeks ago I was a daily Mass attending, weekly confessing stand up Catholic. Now I’m an “anti” for bringing up the limbo change in doctrine controversy. Please, your attack is so transparent.

 

[Atk_Aheeni]

Well that’s all I’ve ever gotten, “it’s not a doctrine and never was a doctrine”, I’ve never actually seen anyone refute the councils, and papal bulls, or the fact it was taught as apostolic tradition for nearly two millenia, and now is going kaput.

Forget it, I give up, I’ll never get a good answer and it is time to simple accept that. The only answer EVER given is “you need to study more (ad hominem to avoid the actual data provided), limbo is not and has never been a doctrine of the Church”…

haha maybe you should quit digging and start believing what you think is right because no one can tell you otherwise so far on all the threads you post.

 

[tequilamac]

The old standyby, make no points actually talking about the councils and papal bulls, simply call me an anti-Catholic and be done with it.

Just think a little more than three weeks ago I was a daily Mass attending, weekly confessing stand up Catholic. Now I’m an “anti” for bringing up the limbo change in doctrine controversy. Please, your attack is so transparent.

Ah, but so is yours. Wow, I hope your great devotion did not fail when you discovered something you were not required to believe in in the first place was under discussion. If the Pope wanted to dismiss the Eucharist, or the Real Presence or the Communion of Saints- you would have reason to be disturbed and we would all have to consider him an anti Pope. But Limbo is not an article of faith, does not need to be professed, there is no sin attachment either way so he is free to do what he is doing. If your faith is disturbed by it- well what can anyone do for you? Not much. You are the transparent one. Only a fool builds his faith on that which is not an article of faith. If you build your faith on popular beliefs and doctrines and dismiss the articles of faith as lesser in importance, then of course, your faith will be immediately shaken by say: the addition of another decade of the rosary, or by the sudden encouragement to read the little office of the BVM or not to rahter than the Divine, or the discussion of the significance of a scapular, or whether holy articles should be burned, broken, buried or never discarded. Faith should be built on articles of faith first- all the rest helps. If one’s faith is terribly disturbed by the discussion of something that was never an article of faith to begin with, they never had any faith to begin with and so I’m not sure what you would call such a person. Catholic? Anti Catholic? Confused? Ignorant? What? Definately transparent.

 

[fix]

Well that’s all I’ve ever gotten, “it’s not a doctrine and never was a doctrine”, I’ve never actually seen anyone refute the councils, and papal bulls, or the fact it was taught as apostolic tradition for nearly two millenia, and now is going kaput.

Why don’t you present proof the the Church taught limbo was always understood as you claim?

 

[Saint_Michael]

Ah, but so is yours. Wow, I hope your great devotion did not fail when you discovered something you were not required to believe in in the first place was under discussion. If the Pope wanted to dismiss the Eucharist, or the Real Presence or the Communion of Saints- you would have reason to be disturbed and we would all have to consider him an anti Pope. But Limbo is not an article of faith, does not need to be professed, there is no sin attachment either way so he is free to do what he is doing. If your faith is disturbed by it- well what can anyone do for you? Not much. You are the transparent one. Only a fool builds his faith on that which is not an article of faith. If you build your faith on popular beliefs and doctrines and dismiss the articles of faith as lesser in importance, then of course, your faith will be immediately shaken by say: the addition of another decade of the rosary, or by the sudden encouragement to read the little office of the BVM or not to rahter than the Divine, or the discussion of the significance of a scapular, or whether holy articles should be burned, broken, buried or never discarded. Faith should be built on articles of faith first- all the rest helps. If one’s faith is terribly disturbed by the discussion of something that was never an article of faith to begin with, they never had any faith to begin with and so I’m not sure what you would call such a person. Catholic? Anti Catholic? Confused? Ignorant? What? Definately transparent.

Well I didn’t leave over limbo, my decision is personal and varying, and there are many factors, but seeing them abolish a doctrine of the Church that’s been around for thousands of years doesn’t hurt my decision one bit. To equate limbo to adding another decade of the rosary to me shows how far off you are.

Again what constitutes an infallible doctrine? There are only two ex-Cathedra statements correct? The Ascension and the Immaculate Conception. How are the other dcotrines deemed infallible? Isn’t it through the decisions of councils? Throught he magesterium? Didn’t the Magesterium do that in the Coucnils fo Lyons and Carthage?

Catholics changed doctrine in regards to limbo, it’s as simple as that.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Why don’t you present proof the the Church taught limbo was always understood as you claim?

I did, I showed it from the councils or Carthage and Lyons, and named a Papal Bull.

 

[fix]

Catholics changed doctrine in regards to limbo, it’s as simple as that.

No, that fails to authentically define what Catholics mean by doctrine.

Here is some help in understanding what Catholics must assent to:

Summary of Categories of Belief

 

[Saint_Michael]

No, that fails to authentically define what Catholics mean by doctrine.

Here is some help in understanding what Catholics must assent to:

Summary of Categories of Belief

O.K. so then what’s the big deal about cafeteria Catholics then? It seems I can dismiss most of what the Church teaches then. I can use condoms, miss Mass, and a whole host of other things which Catholics are free to believe and free to dismiss. that is what I’m being told about limbo that Catholics were free to believe it and free to dismiss it, that’s patently false.

 

[rr1213]

This is what the Baltimore Catechism , 1891 version, says.

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the **common belief **they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

The frustration that Non-Catholics experience when speaking with Catholics about doctrine is amply demonstrated by this thread. How often have I read that “the Church CANNOT err on matters of faith and morals”, “the keys have been given to the Church”, “the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church”, etc., etc. Sometimes a distinction is made between when the Pope has spoken ex cathedra, sometimes a distinction is made as to the teaching of the Magisterium, sometimes there is just a blanket assertion by Catholics that “while individual people may err, the Church by definition does not err”.

Ok.

So, I understand the concept that Limbo is a theory, that (according to the Catholic posters here at least…I have not made an independent examination of the Papal Bulls and other documents cited by other posters above) there was never a definitive teaching that Limbo was doctrine that must be accepted by the Catholic faithful. The quote from the Baltimore Catechism above seems to support this by referring to a “common belief”.

But what about the other statement in the Baltimore Catechism that “infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven”? Is this teaching doctrine? Is it inerrant teaching? If not, then what about all those generations of American Catholics who memorized and relied on this Catechism as being an accurate statement of the Catholic faith? Has the Church failed them in that regard?

 

[tequilamac]

Is the Pope’s reconsideration a cause for scandal or upset? No. It will only be scandalous to those who never knew what they were supposed to believe in in the first place. His actions while it may scandalize many of the weak or ignorant, are not a problem here. For they are scandalized without cause.

An article of faith is the pure goodness of God. An article of faith is not the pure goodness of man. When the pedophile scandal hit, many devout Catholics dashed for the door, never to be seen again. Now they were given cause for scandal and it will go hard for those that scandalized them but it will also go hard for the scandalized. Those who put their faith in the goodness of man placed their faith incorrectly so were scandalized by the scandal. Those who put their faith in the pure goodness of God and not in man, found the scandal sad, sorrowful and heartbreaking but their faith was undisturbed. As Christ himself said, build your house on rock, not on sand. Those who build their faith on articles of faith retain their faith when the storms come- those who do not build their faith on articles of faith disappear in the hard times.

 

[fix]

O.K. so then what’s the big deal about cafeteria Catholics then? It seems I can dismiss most of what the Church teaches then.

How do you conclude that?

I can use condoms, miss Mass, and a whole host of other things which Catholics are free to believe and free to dismiss. that is what I’m being told about limbo that Catholics were free to believe it and free to dismiss it, that’s patently false.

Huh? Contraception has been taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium as contradicting natural moral law. That is not an option.

Intentionally missing mass violates canon law and is grave matter. It binds under serious sin.

It seems your problem is failing to grasp what the Church teaches. You want to read selective items, draw one conclusion, and reject the interpretation as given by the Church.

 

[tequilamac]

O.K. so then what’s the big deal about cafeteria Catholics then? It seems I can dismiss most of what the Church teaches then. I can use condoms, miss Mass, and a whole host of other things which Catholics are free to believe and free to dismiss. that is what I’m being told about limbo that Catholics were free to believe it and free to dismiss it, that’s patently false.

Oh good heavens, man. Why waste everyone’s time? Study first what the Church teaches then get back to us. Your ignorance is showing. But don’t give up. There is help for it. It is called an earnest effort to “inform your conscience”. Like I said before- start with the actual articles of faith. But arguing about that which you obviously know nothing won’t help. Sorry.

 

[Saint_Michael]

How do you conclude that?

Huh? Contraception has been taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium as contradicting natural moral law. That is not an option.

Intentionally missing mass violates canon law and is grave matter. It binds under serious sin.

It seems your problem is failing to grasp what the Church teaches. You want to read selective items, draw one conclusion, and reject the interpretation as given by the Church.

BUT THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS TAUGHT LIMBO AT SEVERAL COUNCILS TOO!

This is like banging yoru head into the wall, everything I listed was not in your required to believe list. Limbo was clearly taught by Popes, numerous councils and Papal Bulls, on par with many other doctrines Catholics today require the faithful to adhere to. The idea that unbaptized could not go to Heaven was indeed a doctrine of the Church.

Forget it I give up, I’m out of this discussion, talking to Catholics about what exactly is doctrine, what’s infallibly defined, what isn’t is an act of futility.

 

[tequilamac]

BUT THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS TAUGHT LIMBO AT SEVERAL COUNCILS TOO!

This is like banging yoru head into the wall, everything I listed was not in your required to believe list. Limbo was clearly taught by Popes, numerous councils and Papal Bulls, on par with many other doctrines Catholics today require the faithful to adhere to. The idea that unbaptized could not go to Heaven was indeed a doctrine of the Church.

Ah, a new tactic- distortion. The Church still teaches the unbaptised cannot go to Heaven except under the most extraordinary of circumstances.This is an article of faith. Never changed that teaching still hasn’t. And that is not what is under discussion is it? What is under discussion is Limbo. Limbo is not an article of faith. Nice try though.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Oh good heavens, man. Why waste everyone’s time? Study first what the Church teaches then get back to us. Your ignorance is showing. But don’t give up. There is help for it. It is called an earnest effort to “inform your conscience”. Like I said before- start with the actual articles of faith. But arguing about that which you obviously know nothing won’t help. Sorry.

Forget it guy, you’ve all successfully avoided the actual meat of my posts which is that limbo was taught by the Council of Bishops, by Popes, endorsed in Papal Bulls.

Now all you can do is start the ad hominem attacks, it’s transparent, and I honestly believe most lurkers and contributors will see through that clearly.

Why don’t YOU provide me a list of all Catholic doctrines, and a list of what’s been infallibly declared through Church history if it’s that easy?

 

[fix]

BUT THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS TAUGHT LIMBO AT SEVERAL COUNCILS TOO!

You claim that such a thing axiomatically means the teaching is a doctrine because you deem it so, not because it authentically is. You want to define what doctrine is and reject what the Church says doctrine is.

This is like banging yoru head into the wall, everything I listed was not in your required to believe list.

The list was not exhaustive. It requires having more knowledge and more study, not simply declaring something true because you want it so.

Limbo was clearly taught by Popes, numerous councils and Papal Bulls, on par with many other doctrines Catholics today require the faithful to adhere to.

That is your assertion, but not true.

The idea that unbaptized could not go to Heaven was indeed a doctrine of the Church.

That argument is more nuanced than simply claiming belief in limbo is a doctrine.

Forget it I give up, I’m out of this discussion, talking to Catholics about what exactly is doctrine, what’s infallibly defined, what isn’t is an act of futility.

Only if one refuses to accept what is true.

 

[fix]

Ah, a new tactic- distortion. The Church still teaches the unbaptised cannot go to Heaven except under the most extraordinary of circumstances.This is an article of faith. Never changed that teaching still hasn’t. And that is not what is under discussion is it? What is under discussion is Limbo. Limbo is not an article of faith. Nice try though.

Exactly.

 

[Saint_Michael]

You claim that such a thing axiomatically means the teaching is a doctrine because you deem it so, not because it authentically is. You want to define what doctrine is and reject what the Church says doctrine is…

As soon as I can find two Catholics who agree on what the Church teaches as doctrine I’ll let you know.