What changed in 500 years?

[VARC]

I think you had better read LilyM’s post again - Bishops can teach lost of things, not just doctrines. Chances are that, as something in the Catechism, it was widely taught. But never was it enforced as doctrine.

We’re not discussing whether limbo was enforced. I am stating that it was universality taught by the Roman church for 100s of years before they finally decided to teach something diffrent. To mock protestants for changing doctrine is utter Roman hypocracy.

P.S I know that limbo was not mandated for belief. A roman catholic was always free to hold to the Augustinan view that all unbaptised babies go to hell if one wanted. However, believing that unbaptised babies go to heaven was completely unheard of and probably would have landed you with a date with the Inquisition.

 

[RobHom]

VARC… I’ll be a nice guy and save you some reading… though you would get a better understanding of the issue by reading the entire link, and possibly learn what you’ve been missing in the Bible.

The following is from here:

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock94.htm

Its down the page a ways…and there some other interesting items on that page as well. Lots of interesting and educational items …questions and answers about Catholicism…even one about “Papal Infallibility”…

*I heard that it’s the Church’s teaching that unbaptized babies go to hell rather than limbo. Is this true?

No–but neither is it official teaching that they go to limbo. The fate of unbaptized children has not been determined.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

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" [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], 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" (CCC 1261).

The idea of limbo is a **theological speculation **about what happens to people who depart this life in original sin (1 Cor. 15:22) but without actual sin (Rom. 9:11). The only such people would be the unborn, babies, young children, morons, and a few others. They lack actual sin, so they would not be in hell, but they have original sin, so they would not be in heaven. It was speculated that they would be in a place of natural glory (limbo).

The basis for this speculation has been undercut by recent reflection on God’s salvific will. The Second Vatican Council stated, “For since Christ died for all (Rom. 8:32) . . . we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et Spes 22). This includes the young and those severely retarded. *

The bolding was mine for emphasis.

 

[VARC]

VARC… I’ll be a nice guy and save you some reading… though you would get a better understanding of the issue by reading the entire link, and possibly learn what you’ve been missing in the Bible.

The following is from here:

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock94.htm

Its down the page a ways…and there some other interesting items on that page as well. Lots of interesting and educational items …questions and answers about Catholicism…even one about “Papal Infallibility”…

*I heard that it’s the Church’s teaching that unbaptized babies go to hell rather than limbo. Is this true?

No–but neither is it official teaching that they go to limbo. The fate of unbaptized children has not been determined.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

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" [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], 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" (CCC 1261).

The idea of limbo is a **theological speculation ***about what happens to people who depart this life in original sin (1 Cor. 15:22) but without actual sin (Rom. 9:11). The only such people would be the unborn, babies, young children, morons, and a few others. They lack actual sin, so they would not be in hell, but they have original sin, so they would not be in heaven. It was speculated that they would be in a place of natural glory (limbo).

The basis for this speculation has been undercut by recent reflection on God’s salvific will. The Second Vatican Council stated, “For since Christ died for all (Rom. 8:32) . . . we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et Spes 22). This includes the young and those severely retarded.

The bolding was mine for emphasis.

Thank you for citing a completely unbias and objective source

 

[RobHom]

We’re not discussing whether limbo was enforced. I am stating that it was universality taught by the Roman church for 100s of years before they finally decided to teach something diffrent. To mock protestants for changing doctrine is utter Roman hypocracy.

Oh, wait now… you’re going to get all “conditional”… ahah! Another anti-papist legalistic sidestepping maneuver!! Please support your statement if “universality of teaching for 100s of years”…OK?

Limbo was “theological speculation”…and I was taught as a child, 50 years ago that it was just that, and akin to purgatory, and that it was a place where the innocent went before going on to heaven…

The difference betwixt us and they is not of “hypocrisy”, as we don’t change the rules to fit our lifestyles or desires. The Catholic Church has been the one great bulwark of steadfastness in truth since day one.

P.S I know that limbo was not mandated for belief. A roman catholic was always free to hold to the Augustinan view that all unbaptised babies go to hell if one wanted. However, believing that unbaptised babies go to heaven was completely unheard of and probably would have landed you with a date with the Inquisition.

And your point there? Not sure you understand what the “inquisition” was about…

 

[RobHom]

Thank you for citing a completely unbias and objective source

Which of these “sources” would you prefer I get the “unbiased and objective viewpoint” from:

1. Southern Baptist Convention
2. Assembly of God
3. Baptist Convention
4. Seventh Day Adventists
5. Church of Whats Happening Now
6. United Nations

What… You expect a dyed in the wool Catholic to use an anti-papist source for proofs of Catholicism

Surely you jest. At least I give a source…

 

[LilyM]

Thank you for citing a completely unbias and objective source

You mean a Catholic source? As opposed to a completely unbiased and objective anti-Catholic one I suppose. News flash - 99% of all writings about the Catholic church are one or 'tother, and the antis are if anything more biased than ours

You want to learn about chickens, go to a chicken farmer. You want to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and believes, go to the horse’s mouth, aka the official documents of the Church such as the Catechisms. With the proper understanding of course - which is that not every pronouncement or teaching in any Catechism is dogma or doctrine.

 

[VARC]

Oh, wait now… you’re going to get all “conditional”… ahah! Another anti-papist legalistic sidestepping maneuver!! Please support your statement if “universality of teaching for 100s of years”…OK?

Limbo was “theological speculation”…and I was taught as a child, 50 years ago that it was just that, and akin to purgatory, and that it was a place where the innocent went before going on to heaven…

The difference betwixt us and they is not of “hypocrisy”, as we don’t change the rules to fit our lifestyles or desires. The Catholic Church has been the one great bulwark of steadfastness in truth since day one.

And your point there? Not sure you understand what the “inquisition” was about…

Limbo is only one of many things that they changed over the years: EENS, indulgences, religious liberty etc. If you want to believe that the Roman church’s teaching haven’t changed over the centuries, be my guest. I’m not going to waste my Sunday even trying to convince you. You are more invested in defending Rome than the pursuit of the truth and that has blinded you.

 

[RobHom]

You mean a Catholic source? As opposed to a completely unbiased and objective anti-Catholic one I suppose. News flash - 99% of all writings about the Catholic church are one or 'tother, and the antis are if anything more biased than ours

You want to learn about chickens, go to a chicken farmer. You want to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and believes, go to the horse’s mouth, aka the official documents of the Church such as the Catechisms. With the proper understanding of course - which is that not every pronouncement or teaching in any Catechism is dogma or doctrine.

AMEN SISTER!!!

By the way… I like your “location”…you can’t get much farther “south”!!

 

[RobHom]

Limbo is only one of many things that they changed over the years: EENS, indulgences, religious liberty etc. If you want to believe that the Roman church’s teaching haven’t changed over the centuries, be my guest. I’m not going to waste my Sunday even trying to convince you. You are more invested in defending Rome than the pursuit of the truth and that has blinded you.

Oh, please…spare me the condescension…

EENS?

Indulgences…thats already been put to bed.

Religious liberty?

Wasting your Sunday evening? That’s entirely your viewpoint. Sorry you feel that way. But if what you consider wasting is a rejection of your brand of truth…which has yet to make a single salient point…then yes, you are wasting your time. Rome does not need me to defend it… And I haven’t been blinded by anything. I’m a Catholic, spelled with a BIG C and that means that I possess FREE WILL and have a free mind to do as I wish with. I do. No “automatons” here doing the bidding of Rome… nope.

Tell us, which “non-Catholic” group do you belong to, and why is your theology superior or more the truth than any other non-Catholic groups theology?

 

[Reformed]

For love.
For unity.
For union with the one Church.
For the sake of Christian witness to the world.
For historical continuity with the Church & faith of all ages.
For a contemporary source of divine teaching authority in your life.
For an end to the proliferation of many new & heretical doctrines.
For a greater understanding of your Catholic Christian brothers.
For an acceptable sacrifice (body and blood of Christ) to God.
For a truly good and blessed spiritual mother.
For all of the truth committed to the saints.
For the communion of Saints.
For the current culture war.
For the great commission.

And to resist the one who sows discord among the bretheren.

Do you understand that I adhere to the solas of the Reformation? Can you embrace the solas to create unity between Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians? Do you see the dilemma we have? I do not believe in the essential doctrinal issues of Roman Catholicism that divide us; therefore how can I unite with the Roman Church? By uniting with Roman Catholicism without essential doctrinal changes, then I would be selling out the Protestant Reformers who were willing to die for their convictions.

 

[Reformed]

I think it’s a good question in either direction.

As I understand it, you’re asking, Why is an ecumenical agenda a good thing to pursue today, if it wasn’t 400 years ago?

My answer (regardless of whether you talking about the Protestant p.o.v. or the Catholic p.o.v.) is that an ecumenical agenda was good thing to pursue 400 years ago, just as it is today.

Well, my convictions are different than yours because I side with the Christians who divided from the Roman Catholic Church. If Rome does not change, than Roman Catholic Christians have nothing to lose or compromise for unity. On the other hand, only the Protestants would be compromising their convictions for unity. The deck is too stacked for an incentive for unity for the Protestant Christian who understand what is at stake.

 

[BlestOne]

Well, my convictions are different than yours because I side with the Christians who divided from the Roman Catholic Church. If Rome does not change, than Roman Catholic Christians have nothing to lose or compromise for unity. On the other hand, only the Protestants would be compromising their convictions for unity. The deck is too stacked for an incentive for unity for the Protestant Christian who understand what is at stake.

I guess that you don’t get that the Catholic Church can’t water down to suit peoples sinful nature because then it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church. We have a duty to preserve the Church that Christ came to start. If we lose our integrity we have lost everything. Personally, I think that watering down a religion to make it easier for people is one of the worst things the Catholic Church could EVER do.

 

[BlestOne]

Do you understand that I adhere to the solas of the Reformation? Can you embrace the solas to create unity between Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians? Do you see the dilemma we have? I do not believe in the essential doctrinal issues of Roman Catholicism that divide us; therefore how can I unite with the Roman Church? By uniting with Roman Catholicism without essential doctrinal changes, then I would be selling out the Protestant Reformers who were willing to die for their convictions.

And they are more important than the apostles that died to preserve the Catholic Church?

 

[adstrinity]

And they are more important than the apostles that died to preserve the Catholic Church?

…Or Jesus Christ Who died for His Bride The Catholic Church?

 

[BlestOne]

…Or Jesus Christ Who died for His Bride The Catholic Church?

Touche

 

[Reformed]

…Or Jesus Christ Who died for His Bride The Catholic Church?

Are you proclaiming that Jesus only died for those who are members of the Catholic Church and not for other Christians?

 

[Reformed]

I guess that you don’t get that the Catholic Church can’t water down to suit peoples sinful nature because then it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church. We have a duty to preserve the Church that Christ came to start. If we lose our integrity we have lost everything. Personally, I think that watering down a religion to make it easier for people is one of the worst things the Catholic Church could EVER do.

Therefore, we are saying nothing has been resolved in 500 years since nothing essentially has changed with Roman Catholics and Protestants in regards to our division. I don’t think the solas are a water-downed version of Christianity. I think the solas are about the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4

The Light of the Gospel

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants [2] for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

spiritone.com/~wing/5solas.htm

 

[Peter_J]

Well, my convictions are different than yours because I side with the Christians who divided from the Roman Catholic Church. If Rome does not change, than Roman Catholic Christians have nothing to lose or compromise for unity. On the other hand, only the Protestants would be compromising their convictions for unity. The deck is too stacked for an incentive for unity for the Protestant Christian who understand what is at stake.

I’m not too sure of how it works with Protestants, so let me instead compare Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

The Roman Catholics say “What we teach is the truth, and we will never stop teaching that truth.”

Whereas the Eastern Orthodox say “What we teach is the truth, and we will never stop teaching that truth.”

Perhaps you can see the similarity.

But neither side says to the other, “You teach error, and you will never stop teaching that error.” Thus, both sides have hope of eventual reconciliation, even though they see it differently.

 

[BlestOne]

I’m not too sure of how it works with Protestants, so let me instead compare Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

The Roman Catholics say “What we teach is the truth, and we will never stop teaching that truth.”

Whereas the Eastern Orthodox say “What we teach is the truth, and we will never stop teaching that truth.”

Perhaps you can see the similarity.

But neither side says to the other, “You teach error, and you will never stop teaching that error.” Thus, both sides have hope of eventual reconciliation, even though they see it differently.

Exactly what I was trying to say… Good post!

 

[Peter_J]

Exactly what I was trying to say…

I never would have guessed that.

Good post!

Thank you.