So in other words, no one is sure, so you’ll just come up with a theory that fits a gap, that’s not really a doctrine, and you’re still not sure, anyway. ???
Exactly. Our human comprehension and knowledge is limited. The theoretical idea of Limbo did indeed fill a gap in our understanding. It is taught insofar as it is useful. Throughout Christendom there have been countless teaching tools which have been used to teach mysteries that could not be understood at a particular time.
Limbo, as I think I stated before, is meant to explain the state of souls which have not committed actual sin, but of which we are uncertain regarding their state of grace. I reiterate: It is a theoretical teaching. The very nature of theory is that it explains uncertainty.
I am not sure to which sect of “Orthodox” you subscribe, but I would presume that you function on some measure of theory in parts of your theology, so this should not be a difficult subject for you to digest.
How do you define non-dogma? Isn’t that a contradiction?
LOL. Actually, no. One can define many things that are not considered dogmatic. For instance, the Immaculate Conception was well defined for centuries before it was proclaimed dogmatically.
That’s besides the point. I can accept that one can make a certain declaration that Mary is in heaven, but limbo, well it’s in a kind of limbo, taught, but not taught, not defined as dogma, but it’s important to define it!
No sir, it is not beside the point. I was responding to your point entirely. You said:
Then at the same time you’re arguing that no one knows who’ll get to heaven, etc.
The purpose was to respond to your misconception that the Catholic Church doesn’t know whether or not a particular person is in the eternal glory of heaven.
I understand that you are continually frustrated by the idea of Limbo being taught, yet not dogmatically defined. But, as you would not accept a dogmatic definition in any case, I really don’t see the root of your fascination.
I’m not frustrated at all.
Obviously.
I don’t believe in limbo.
Obviously. And for the record, at present, neither do I.
I don’t believe in Original Sin, so I don’t need to come up with a kind of ‘half-way’ state for babies ‘tainted’ with Original Sin.
Instead of hovering about the theoretical proposition of Limbo, how about you begin a thread about this heterodox belief of yours regarding Original Sin?
That’s a rather weak argument; deflection.
Forgive me. I had no intention of deflection, which is precisely why I took time and energy to respond specifically to each of your points.
I merely meant to relieve you of arguing against a teaching that the Catholic Church, herself, does not promote or defend.
Doesn’t hinder my faith at all. In effect you’re arguing “If it’s absurd, ignore it, and we’ll just go on teaching it (not as dogma)”
Once again, I think you have entirely missed the point in the midst of your fascination with Limbo.
To date, I know of no one in the Catholic Church who actively teaches Limbo. This does not mean that no one does, to be sure. However, it is antiquated at best. I will again quote the current Catholic teaching:
“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,’ 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).
If you are truly interested in profitable dialogue, then I would respectfully suggest you address the above teaching rather than trying to shoot holes in an idea that the Catholic Church doesn’t insist upon.
