What should the Church "drop" besides limbo?

[estesbob]

You are mixing apples with oranges with pears. Items one through five are moral teachings. Item six is a question of church discipline in spite of JP II’s desperate and probably successful attempts to bind his predecessors by pretending it is anything else, and only the rest are questions of doctrine. And this thing about dropping limbo is as far as I know only a rumor. Limbo is as sensible a doctrine as any in Roman Catholicism.

So the Fact that John Paul the Great affirmed a 2,000 year old doctrine is an act of desperation???

 

[mchale]

Wrong.

Prayer Warrior, please open your copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the official index under the word “Limbo.” You’ll find limbo right there on that page. Limbo will be smiling at you, because it’s a state of unmerited, unending natural happiness–a state for which we should all thank God.

The index links limbo with section 1261. The “hope” and “way of salvation” mentioned in that section should be understood as referring to limbo, not heaven.

In my hardcover edition of the new catechism, limbo is listed on page 816.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Just a point, but I would like to see some sort of evidence to suggest that “way of salvation” should be understood as referring to limbo and not heaven. I can certainly see Limbo being included in the Index, since it is certainly a subject many would be interested in.

–
Bill

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Wrong.

Prayer Warrior, please open your copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the official index under the word “Limbo.” You’ll find limbo right there on that page. Limbo will be smiling at you, because it’s a state of unmerited, unending natural happiness–a state for which we should all thank God.

The index links limbo with section 1261. The “hope” and “way of salvation” mentioned in that section should be understood as referring to limbo, not heaven.

In my hardcover edition of the new catechism, limbo is listed on page 816.

Keep and spread the Faith.

I stand corrected. Sorta. It does not come up in the searchable catechism online. Probably because the word Limbo is no where in the text of paragraph 1261. However, I did check my hard copy catechism which showed Limbo in the index in relation to 1261. But, again, the word Limbo is not in the text of the paragraph. In fact, the paragraph itself does a pretty poor job of explaining limbo if that is what it is indeed trying to do.

I read recently that Pope was quoted as saying that Limbo was a “theological hypothesis” which is what I always thought that it was. Certainly, para 1261 does not make Limbo a clear teaching because it doesn’t say that this “hope” of a “way of salvation” is a realm outside of heaven. Are you saying that you believe Limbo is an official doctrine of the Church? (Which was really my main point in my previous post) If so, do you happen to have the official doctrine by the Pope who declared Limbo as an official teaching? I have can’t seem to find an official teaching although one website says there was a letter supporting the idea of limbo from Pope Pius VI’s “Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei”. But almost every other site, including this page at Catholic Answers say that Limbo has never been an official doctrine of the Church. I am not an expert in this area, (or any area )…only trying to learn…

I don’t mean to get the thread off track. But so far I remain unconvinced that limbo should be listed along with the doctrines that were listed in the poll. Those are definitely official teachings.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are mixing apples with oranges with pears. Items one through five are moral teachings. Item six is a question of church discipline in spite of JP II’s desperate and probably successful attempts to bind his predecessors by pretending it is anything else, and only the rest are questions of doctrine. And this thing about dropping limbo is as far as I know only a rumor. Limbo is as sensible a doctrine as any in Roman Catholicism.

#6 is an infallible teaching of the Church. Even if it were not an ex cathedra declaration (and theologians are debating that now, since John Paul the Great invoked his authority as the one who “confirms his brethren,” and spoke to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals), it was confirmed by the CDF that it was to be regarded as infallible as a part of the ordinary magisterium…and infallible is infallible.

I didn’t vote. The Church isn’t a democracy.

 

[Seatuck]

It depends upon what you mean by Limbo. Limbo as in the Limbo of the Fathers (Limbus Patrum or Abrahams Bosom is church doctrine. It is the place Jesus went to preach to the righteous who died before he died and opened heaven. If you mean “limbo of the infants” then no that is not church doctrine.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/01055a.htm

There is no discussion to drop Limbus Patrum. Only Limbo Infantium. And it isn’t really dropping just not confirming because there isn’t enough revelation for it, only theory.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I stand corrected. Sorta. It does not come up in the searchable catechism online. Probably because the word Limbo is no where in the text of paragraph 1261. However, I did check my hard copy catechism which showed Limbo in the index in relation to 1261. But, again, the word Limbo is not in the text of the paragraph. In fact, the paragraph itself does a pretty poor job of explaining limbo if that is what it is indeed trying to do.

I read recently that Pope was quoted as saying that Limbo was a “theological hypothesis” which is what I always thought that it was. Certainly, para 1261 does not make Limbo a clear teaching because it doesn’t say that this “hope” of a “way of salvation” is a realm outside of heaven. Are you saying that you believe Limbo is an official doctrine of the Church? (Which was really my main point in my previous post) If so, do you happen to have the official doctrine by the Pope who declared Limbo as an official teaching? I have can’t seem to find an official teaching although one website says there was a letter supporting the idea of limbo from Pope Pius VI’s “Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei”. But almost every other site, including this page at Catholic Answers say that Limbo has never been an official doctrine of the Church. I am not an expert in this area, (or any area )…only trying to learn…

I don’t mean to get the thread off track. But so far I remain unconvinced that limbo should be listed along with the doctrines that were listed in the poll. Those are definitely official teachings.

Prayer Warrior, thanks for your post.

I do not believe that limbo is an official teaching of the Catholic Church in the sense of a Catholic dogma. I do believe, however, that limbo is a deduction and a hypothesis that are necessary for the defense of a truth that is a Catholic dogma, i.e., original sin.

It is true that Pope Pius VI, without declaring it a dogma, issued a statement that was extremely favorable to the concept of limbo. This statement, with which all Catholics should become familiar, does indeed appear in his apostolic constitution entitled Auctorem fidei, dated August 28, 1794 (DS 2626=D 1526). Pope Pius VI taught that it was “false” to attack the concept of limbo as if it were a fable.

This statement by Pope Pius VI is only one of many reasons why I believe that my brothers and sisters who believe that the Catholic Church can “drop” limbo have been egregiously misinformed.

Prayer Warrior, I, too, am trying to learn, which is why I’m trying to learn as much as I can about the deduction of limbo and the dogma of original sin in sound theological sources.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[jbuck919]

So the Fact that John Paul the Great affirmed a 2,000 year old doctrine is an act of desperation???

He affirmed 2000 years of practice, which is not the same thing. Show me anywhere in church wirting or teaching prior to him that it would ever have occurred to a pope, a council, or a traditional theologian to mention the matter at all.

 

[MariaG]

.

I suspect that some of those Catholics advocating that limbo be “scrapped” would like to see Catholicism turned into what Pope St. Pius X, condemning the heresy of Modernism in 1907, called a “broad and liberal Protestantism” (DS 3465=D2065).

Keep and spread the Faith.

I suspect you would be wrong, at least in my case.

Although I do not advocate the “dropping” of limbo perse, I do not embrace it either. (So maybe I don’t count?)

But I read all the answers and thought, where is the “none of the above” button, so I didn’t cast a vote.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[USMC]

Maybe the Church should “drop” the teachings of the Divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Then should would have a better chance in uniting with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims and the Jews.

Afterall, a lot of people just don’t like those teachings.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Hey, USMC, good to see you on this thread! Man, if I have the support of the Marine Corps, how can I lose this fight?

I’m sorry to see that four of our fellow Catholics have voted in my poll to “drop” the teaching that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–in addition to “dropping” the concept of limbo.

Maybe these Catholics are unaware of the fact that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a Catholic dogma.

Of course, like all dogmas, this one must be understood only in the sense in which the Church herself understands it. Please read sections 846-848 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and also the 1949 letter of the Holy Office:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[jbuck919]

#6 is an infallible teaching of the Church. Even if it were not an ex cathedra declaration (and theologians are debating that now, since John Paul the Great invoked his authority as the one who “confirms his brethren,” and spoke to the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals), it was confirmed by the CDF that it was to be regarded as infallible as a part of the ordinary magisterium…and infallible is infallible.

I didn’t vote. The Church isn’t a democracy.

It is absolutely no such thing and he is not John Paulr the Great, he is John Paul the fallible when he makes a mistake.This is pure papolatry. If you go back and look at those documents they are extremely hedged to avoid offending the pope who simply personally could not stand the idea and wanted to find a way to bind his successors at all (illegitimate) costs. He might as well have said that it was a dogma that priests had to wear cassocks. And in the end, he knew it could not have been an infallible pronouncement because he did not literally make it so, which is necessary, along with anathemas, even to this day.

Personally, I don’t care if the church never makes a female priest until kingdom come, but if it does not, it is not because doctrine and dogma says it cannot. Get real and answer my original challenge, who besides him in the entire history if the church ever thought to bother with the matter? By comparison, Pius IX and Pius XII were affirming long standing Marian doctrines when they acted, for the only two times in papal history, ex cathedra.

 

[corvidae]

I’m sorry to see that four of our fellow Catholics have voted in my poll to “drop” the teaching that “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–in addition to “dropping” the concept of limbo.

make that three priscilla ann is not catholic.

A lone Raven

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

You left out “none of the above”.

pax vobiscum

I was thinking exactly that. None of the above.

Futhermore, since Limbo is not and never has been a doctrine of the faith, it can’t be “dropped”.

Original sin is in no danger or being “dropped”, nor do I agree that limbo is essential to the defense of it. Original sin has support from all three legs of the infallible teachings of the church, Biblical, Magisterial, and Traditional. Limbo lacks two of them and if that is used as a defense or teaching to support original sin then it is, (at least) weak and (at worst) just plain wrong.

 

[tradcathconvert]

I vote none of the above, and keep limbo.

 

[Walking_Home]

Vote ----none of the above—and limbo is in the CCC.

 

[tundramom]

None of the above.

in Christ
Steph

 

[CRW]

There is talk in the Catholic media and on these forums about the alleged ability of the Catholic Church to “drop” or “scrap” the concept of limbo. As a Catholic, I’m upset by this talk for this reason: even though limbo is not a Catholic dogma, it’s a deduction that’s necessary for the defense of truths that are Catholic dogmas, especially the dogma of original sin–the sin that makes it impossible for unbaptized infants to go to heaven (CCC 403 and 1250).

If the Church were to “drop” limbo and original sin, then she could drop *any *concept, dogma, or teaching. Logic demands this conclusion. This is why the Church will not, and cannot, “abolish” limbo. The one true Church cannot contradict herself in her official teachings, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her (Mt. 16:18).

Still, I’m interested in seeing how confused some of my Catholic brothers and sisters are. By my poll, which should be answered only by Catholics who believe that the Church should “drop” limbo, I’m trying to determine the percentages of Catholics who are willling to see the Church self-destruct by “dropping” other teachings.

I suspect that some of those Catholics advocating that limbo be “scrapped” would like to see Catholicism turned into what Pope St. Pius X, condemning the heresy of Modernism in 1907, called a “broad and liberal Protestantism” (DS 3465=D2065).

We must respect and love our brothers and sisters in broad and liberal Protestantism, and we must pray and work in the ecumenical movement for their return to full communion with the Catholic Church. We must not, however, allow ourselves to become broad and liberal Protestants.

Keep and spread the Faith.

What a poll; why not add the Pope, Bishops, Priests, Confession, etc. None of the above would provide true Catholic’s a chance to vote. As is, if you are not against the Church, you are not allow to vote. Sound like a Russian Poll.

 

[tradcathconvert]

What a poll; why not add the Pope, Bishops, Priests, Confession, etc. None of the above would provide true Catholic’s a chance to vote. As is, if you are not against the Church, you are not allow to vote. Sound like a Russian Poll.

CRW, you have a good point. Thank you.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

It depends upon what you mean by Limbo. Limbo as in the Limbo of the Fathers (Limbus Patrum or Abrahams Bosom is church doctrine. It is the place Jesus went to preach to the righteous who died before he died and opened heaven. If you mean “limbo of the infants” then no that is not church doctrine.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/01055a.htm

There is no discussion to drop Limbus Patrum. Only Limbo Infantium. And it isn’t really dropping just not confirming because there isn’t enough revelation for it, only theory.

Ok, this makes more sense to me now. Not sure if one or more of us was referring to the different teachings. I, myself, was referring only to Limbo of the infants in my previous posts. Thanks.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There is talk in the Catholic media and on these forums about the alleged ability of the Catholic Church to “drop” or “scrap” the concept of limbo.

I just don’t understand this poll.

The Church never taught limbo. Limbo has never been a dogma of the Church. It is nothing more than a theological speculation.

So if it is “dropped” it can in no way be compared to what this poll is asking.