What should the Church "drop" besides limbo?

[Steve_O_Brien]

See here is where the problem of limbo comes, you are giving the people who committed actual sin a chance to enter heaven, but are not giving those who committed no actual sin to enter heaven.
A lone Raven

Raven, one of the reasons for the tremendous, disturbing confusion surrounding limbo is the failure to appreciate some basic truths of the Faith.

May I list those truths?

1. Our mere existence in *this *world is a gift.
2. The merely natural life of limbo is a super gift.
3. The supernatural life of heaven is a mega-gift.

God doesn’t have to give anyone a “chance” at any of these three gifts. No human being has a strict right to any of these gifts. The only sane reaction to God’s generosity is gratitude.

"If you knew the gift of God . . .]" (Jn 4:10).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mchale]

41 votes for making the Church a cafeteria. How truly sad.

Well, technically not I think. Its a cafeteria, if and only if those who desire those changes are also unwilling to obey what the Church currently teaches. If I were to wish that the Church would change its teachings regarding say using condoms, as long as I was willing to submit to its current teaching it does not make me a cafeteria Catholic, only human.

–
Bill

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’m sorry but I’m working on changing my view of contraception but as of now, that’s where I stand.
On the other issue, I just don’t believe that Jesus would exclude someone from Heaven just because they were not affilliated with the Catholic Church.
But then again, I’m not a very “good” Catholic so try not to get too saddened by my opinion. I mean no disrespect. It’s just my feelings on those matters.

Mrs. Abbott, I mean no disrespect either, but please read these sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 846-848 and 2366-2372.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Mrs. Abbott, I mean no disrespect either, but please read these sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 846-848 and 2366-2372.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Oh believe me I’ve read them. I’m assuming that you’re concerned with my spiritual well-being and if that’s true, you’re a good person. It’s hard to wrestle with these issues, knowing that the Church I belong to thinks differently than me.

 

[Tom317]

Well, technically not I think. Its a cafeteria, if and only if those who desire those changes are also unwilling to obey what the Church currently teaches. If I were to wish that the Church would change its teachings regarding say using condoms, as long as I was willing to submit to its current teaching it does not make me a cafeteria Catholic, only human.

–
Bill

I disagree. If one is properly educated and formed in the faith, then they will understand the reasons for those teachings and would not desire change.

 

[Tom317]

I’m sorry but I’m working on changing my view of contraception but as of now, that’s where I stand.
On the other issue, I just don’t believe that Jesus would exclude someone from Heaven just because they were not affilliated with the Catholic Church.
But then again, I’m not a very “good” Catholic so try not to get too saddened by my opinion. I mean no disrespect. It’s just my feelings on those matters.

I cannot help but feel saddened with the results of that poll. Catholics should know these teachings well enough to know they will never change, and yet they should also not want to see them changed because Jesus did not give the world a cafeteria.

A person can say they like to drive their car very fast, yet still not want the speed limit to change to be 150 mph because they know the reasons for having people drive at lesser speeds.

 

[patg]

That is an awful lots of votes in favor of making the faith a cafeteria, prodoundly disturbing.

I don’t understand the logic of this statement. The poll does not say “What catholic teaching do you choose to ignore?” It asks which concepts each responding catholic thinks should be reconsidered in the light of today’s knowledge. Maybe I’ve just been in too many cafeteria catholic discussions to understanding your particular meaning.

 

[patg]

I disagree. If one is properly educated and formed in the faith, then they will understand the reasons for those teachings and would not desire change.

I disagree, If one is properly educated, then they will understand that the reasons for a number of these teachings are unsupportable based on the present state of human knowledge and experience.

 

[Tom317]

I disagree, If one is properly educated, then they will understand that the reasons for a number of these teachings are unsupportable based on the present state of human knowledge and experience.

Not ture, and your response simply deepens my concern.

 

[Tom317]

I don’t understand the logic of this statement. The poll does not say “What catholic teaching do you choose to ignore?” It asks which concepts each responding catholic thinks should be reconsidered in the light of today’s knowledge. Maybe I’ve just been in too many cafeteria catholic discussions to understanding your particular meaning.

The poll does not ask which teachings should be re-considered, it asks which teachings should be dropped as Limbo is being dropped.

Two problems: (1) Limbo is not, and will not, be dropped (it reallt cnnot be dropped; (2) People vote as if formal teachings can just be dropped, not even close to true.

 

[mchale]

I disagree. If one is properly educated and formed in the faith, then they will understand the reasons for those teachings and would not desire change.

With respect, I think this position indicates a lack of understanding about human nature. Humans are not purely rational creatures and are not driven purely by reason. Yes, reason can assert control over human action, but not over human desire. Even Jesus, fully understanding the need for his sacrifice asked the Father that he be spared.

I do my best to follow the teachings of the Church, I understand the reasons for the Church’s teachings; that doesn’t mean I like all of those teachings. I follow them because I believe in both the Church and in God.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

With respect, I think this position indicates a lack of understanding about human nature. Humans are not purely rational creatures and are not driven purely by reason. Yes, reason can assert control over human action, but not over human desire. Even Jesus, fully understanding the need for his sacrifice asked the Father that he be spared.

I do my best to follow the teachings of the Church, I understand the reasons for the Church’s teachings; that doesn’t mean I like all of those teachings. I follow them because I believe in both the Church and in God.

–
Bill

There are plenty of things in life that I do not like, yet actively voting for the change of things is far different then not liking them.

 

[mchale]

There are plenty of things in life that I do not like, yet actively voting for the change of things is far different then not liking them.

If this vote was in somehow binding, I might agree with you. However this is a poll that is in no way binding… obviously it can’t.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

If this vote was in somehow binding, I might agree with you. However this is a poll that is in no way binding… obviously it can’t.

–
Bill

Of course, yet people are voting the way they would if they could actually change the Church, that’s the point of the poll and that is the point that disturbs me. It is one thing to not like a certain teaching, it is quite another to want it dropped–it points to a complete lack of understanding about who Christ is and what His Chirch is–imo.

 

[Magicsilence]

Steve is making a good point here.

But…

The pleasure of heaven cannot be had by those who have not been baptised.

This is dogma, and yet we hear of the baptism of desire.

We are to assume therefore that these people are ‘baptised’ in a special way by God.

We may keep the dogma of original sin intact and further suppose that unbaptised babies go to heaven by positing that God baptises them in a special way before their death.

Therefore unbaptised babies would go to limbo, but because none of them are unbaptised they all go to heaven.

Therefore, limbo does not exist because no one has ever or will ever go there.

There, problem solved

 

[Kotton]

With respect, I think this position indicates a lack of understanding about human nature. Humans are not purely rational creatures and are not driven purely by reason. Yes, reason can assert control over human action, but not over human desire.

No, it does not indicate a ‘lack of understanding’, and I see why you say we stil have ‘human desire’. Our humanity desires the pleasure of sinful acts, but at the same time we understand that it is a sin, and we repent and confess. The quote by Tom317 is saying that properly educated we do not desire change.
“I disagree. If one is properly educated and formed in the faith, then they will understand the reasons for those teachings and would not desire change.”

I do my best to follow the teachings of the Church, I understand the reasons for the Church’s teachings; that doesn’t mean I like all of those teachings. I follow them because I believe in both the Church and in God.

Bill

Well and good.

Kotton

 

[Tom317]

Steve is making a good point here.

But…

The pleasure of heaven cannot be had by those who have not been baptised.

This is dogma, and yet we hear of the baptism of desire.

We are to assume therefore that these people are ‘baptised’ in a special way by God.

We may keep the dogma of original sin intact and further suppose that unbaptised babies go to heaven by positing that God baptises them in a special way before their death.

Therefore unbaptised babies would go to limbo, but because none of them are unbaptised they all go to heaven.

Therefore, limbo does not exist because no one has ever or will ever go there.

There, problem solved

Your solution does not work.

Jesus is God, and Jesus made it very clear that we are to be baptized with water, and He emphasized that command by being baptized Himself.

Jesus certainly did not require baptism, He was teaching us how critical baptism is. Yet, using your theory, Jesus would have simply taught us that baptism was optional because He will baptize us before we die if we have not been baptized before our moment of death, be it as an unborn, as a baby, a child or an adult.

There is not getting around this…if Limbo is gone, then that greatly impacts original sin and many other teachings.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Your solution does not work.

Jesus is God, and Jesus made it very clear that we are to be baptized with water, and He emphasized that command by being baptized Himself.

Jesus certainly did require baptism, He was teaching us how critical baptism is. Yet, using your theory, Jesus would have simply taught us that baptism was optional because He will baptize us before we die if we have not been baptized before our moment of death, be it as an unborn, as a baby, a child or an adult.

There is not getting around this…if Limbo is gone, then that greatly impacts original sin and many other teachings.

Tom is absolutely correct in his post defending the Faith. (Tom, I took the liberty of deleting an erroneous “not” that the Devil slipped into your third paragraph to destroy its obvious meaning.)

We must realize the catastrophic damage that would result in Catholic theology if limbo were abandoned. But it won’t, and can’t, be abandoned.

In fomenting confusion about limbo, some people are merely confused, but others have an agenda. This agenda is to attack limbo as a means of pressuring the Church into abandoning other concepts. In many cases, those targeted Catholic concepts are dogmas or unchangeable moral teachings.

A prime example of such a targeted moral teaching is the Church’s condemnation of the intrinsic evil of contraception, i.e., the teaching of Pope Paul VI in the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae (*CCC *2370).

But the condemnation of the mortal sin of contraception is hardly the only Catholic teaching that the soldiers hiding in the belly of the Trojan Horse are hoping to slaughter.

If someone says to you that he or she believes that the Church should “drop” limbo, one of the first things you might say is: “Do you believe that the Church should also ‘drop’ Humanae vitae and allow contraception?”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mchale]

Your solution does not work.

Jesus is God, and Jesus made it very clear that we are to be baptized with water, and He emphasized that command by being baptized Himself.

Jesus certainly did not require baptism, He was teaching us how critical baptism is. Yet, using your theory, Jesus would have simply taught us that baptism was optional because He will baptize us before we die if we have not been baptized before our moment of death, be it as an unborn, as a baby, a child or an adult.

There is not getting around this…if Limbo is gone, then that greatly impacts original sin and many other teachings.

Actually, it does not impact the doctrine of Original Sin any more so than the general exception to the No Salvation outside the Church does. I agree that the concept of Limbo is certainly one resolution to the necessity of Baptisim. However I think we need to keep in mind some basic points.

1. Actual physical baptisim is not strictly speaking necessary. Under extreme circumstances, one can receive baptisim by sincere desire to receive baptisim.
2. Infants are incapable of formulating that sincere desire.
3. The Church however, allows that those who are not formal members of the Church because of ignorance but whom seek God with a sincere heart may be saved by being mystically linked to the Church.

Now on point 3. As far as I can tell, this path is at least technically open to all, even those without an explicit knowledge or belief in Christ and therefore baptised.

Now, we know that God is both Just and Merciful, more over, he is perfectly just and merciful. If the Church teaches that Invincible Ignorance does not prevent someone from being within the mystical church, it should certainly be the a legitimate defense for a child who dies prior to baptisim. It is certainly true that a child in infancy is incapable of being guilty for their ignorance. Likewise one could argue that they have an innate desire for God, even if they cannot articulate that desire. Therefore, it seems, to me anyway, that arguing that such infants are saved in the fullest sense does not argue against the doctrine of Original Sin, but rather argues for both God’s Justice and his Mercy.

Mind you this not mitigate the need to be baptized any more than desiring the eucharist mitigates the need to actually receive it. Actual reception of baptisim will strengthen us spiritually to resist the temptation of sin.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

Actually, it does not impact the doctrine of Original Sin any more so than the general exception to the No Salvation outside the Church does. I agree that the concept of Limbo is certainly one resolution to the necessity of Baptisim. However I think we need to keep in mind some basic points.

1. Actual physical baptisim is not strictly speaking necessary. Under extreme circumstances, one can receive baptisim by sincere desire to receive baptisim.
2. Infants are incapable of formulating that sincere desire.
3. The Church however, allows that those who are not formal members of the Church because of ignorance but whom seek God with a sincere heart may be saved by being mystically linked to the Church.

Now on point 3. As far as I can tell, this path is at least technically open to all, even those without an explicit knowledge or belief in Christ and therefore baptised.

Now, we know that God is both Just and Merciful, more over, he is perfectly just and merciful. If the Church teaches that Invincible Ignorance does not prevent someone from being within the mystical church, it should certainly be the a legitimate defense for a child who dies prior to baptisim. It is certainly true that a child in infancy is incapable of being guilty for their ignorance. Likewise one could argue that they have an innate desire for God, even if they cannot articulate that desire. Therefore, it seems, to me anyway, that arguing that such infants are saved in the fullest sense does not argue against the doctrine of Original Sin, but rather argues for both God’s Justice and his Mercy.

Mind you this not mitigate the need to be baptized any more than desiring the eucharist mitigates the need to actually receive it. Actual reception of baptisim will strengthen us spiritually to resist the temptation of sin.

–
Bill

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Baptism is an absolute, and Jesus made water Baptism an absolute, and the Church has always held that baptism is absolutely required for salvation. Now, as you say, God can work outside of His own rules, yet by doing so in the case of baptism it would lead to people no longer being baptized by choice, and original sin would no longer mean anything since people would come to believe that God will wash them clean no matter what they do…it is snowball effect on the faith.