Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[Dalphon]

Rejection of the Real Presence in Eucharist is actually a part of an early history known as Docetism. Ignatius was against this, too.

I can see why many Protestants don’t research early Church history; because so much of it is against what Protestants stand for.

You’re right. I’m glad I don’t try to follow every protestant teaching that ever existed. Some of them change over time. Sometimes they get new revelations which clarify older teachings. Can you imagine any legitimate church doing something like that? Well anyway a lot of them are just “out there where the buses don’t run;” you know - handling snakes, drinking poison and all that sort of thing.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No, I was only talking about limbo. Unbaptized children were assigned to limbo. This never made sense to me because Catholicism made provision for the invincibly ignorant but not invincibly ignorant babies. I’m glad they finally changed that one. How is it they didn’t know that before Vatican II? That’s the whole point of bringing that up.

Well, you’re going to have to do much, much better.

Here’s the quote FROM YOUR POST:
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.

“it is the common belief …”

Hardly a ringing endorsement, much, much, much less an infallible statement.

… and coming from a book meant to educate children and hardly a systematic theology.

Are you REALLY claiming this as evidence that the Church changed a doctrine?

 

[adrift]

Well, you’re going to have to do much, much better.

Here’s the quote FROM YOUR POST:
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.

“it is the common belief …”

**Hardly a ringing endorsement, much, much, much less an infallible statement. **… and coming from a book meant to educate children and hardly a systematic theology.

Are you REALLY claiming this as evidence that the Church changed a doctrine?

Exactly!

I’m glad they finally changed that one

Since it never was taught to be true only speculation, then there has been no change to say we don’t know that we can only entrust them to the mercy of God. I hardly a change.

 

[benhur]

Rejection of the Real Presence in Eucharist is actually a part of an early history known as Docetism. Ignatius was against this, too.

I can see why many Protestants don’t research early Church history; because so much of it is against what Protestants stand for.

The baby with the bath water is tossed. Docetists baked cookies too, do you ? These early heretics (the one Ignatius dealt with), unlike P’s, did not believe Jesus came and died in the flesh. They were not renouncing transubstantiation, they were renouncing the incarnation, His bodily death and resurrection. Why do you ignore this bit of history ? P’s have enough faults and no need to misinterpret history to see that. All folks who have communion/eucharist remember that He indeed did suffer and die and rise and is coming again-bodily…

 

[Dalphon]

Well, you’re going to have to do much, much better.

Here’s the quote FROM YOUR POST:
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.

“it is the common belief …”

Hardly a ringing endorsement, much, much, much less an infallible statement.

… and coming from a book meant to educate children and hardly a systematic theology.

Are you REALLY claiming this as evidence that the Church changed a doctrine?

Do better than that? Limbo was taught for centuries. Your local parish priest didn’t say it was a common belief or a theological hypothesis. They just told you it was necessary to remove original sin. You couldn’t get into heaven with original sin on your soul. Of course no one wanted original sin on their child, so they did it.

 

[Nanotwerp]

So if the Baltimore Bishops were teaching doctrines not approved by the Holy See isn’t that Protestantism?

That comment is pretty absurd, to be honest.

The Baltimore Catechism actually is still Catholicism; a very deserving catechism at that.

The Baltimore Catechism isn’t an official catechism, though, and it would be pretty messed up for someone to act as if what is in the Baltimore Catechism is somehow by the Pope himself.

Probably the only doctrine not taught officially was the speculation of the existence of Limbo; this was just stating that the existence of it could be possible, but not a definite statement.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

yes but kings (and queens ) were not God’s perfect will and He only allowed it for Israel in their carnality( but poor Satan, for the Lord still made lemonade with it and someday the King of Kings will rule in God’s perfect will).

Au contraire.

Do you worship Jesus as … president?

The Davidic Kingdom is the model for the Kingdom of God.

The bible promises that David’s Kingdom will be a universal and everlasting Kingdom (see for example Psalm 89:3-4, 2Samual 7).

In fact, the Davidic Kingdom was called, in scripture, the Kingdom of God.

Further, queen of heaven is found in jeremiah as something pagans (babylonians) and back slidden Jews did.

You should read this article:
BUT SURELY “QUEEN OF HEAVEN” WAS A PAGAN TITLE, USED OF ISIS AND ISHTAR. IT’S USE MUST BE UNCHRISTIAN.

This is a thoroughly bogus argument. There are a great many Pagan titles, and most make use of common forms of words. “King of Kings” was a title used by many Pagan Gods. So was “Son of God” and “Lord”. Jupiter was titled King of Heaven.

There is, however, as we have seen, an abundance of biblical proof that Mary’s Queenship is both proper, and scripturally based

 

[benhur]

Do better than that? Limbo was taught for centuries. Your local parish priest didn’t say it was a common belief or a theological hypothesis. They just told you it was necessary to remove original sin. You couldn’t get into heaven with original sin on your soul. Of course no one wanted original sin on their child, so they did it.

And apparently their catechisms may or may not be "official " yet they get used (poor Baltimore).

 

[Nanotwerp]

The baby with the bath water is tossed. Docetists baked cookies too, do you ? These early heretics (the one Ignatius dealt with), unlike P’s, did not believe Jesus came and died in the flesh. They were not renouncing transubstantiation, they were renouncing the incarnation, His bodily death and resurrection. Why do you ignore this bit of history ? P’s have enough faults and no need to misinterpret history to see that. All folks who have communion/eucharist remember that He indeed did suffer and die and rise and is coming again-bodily…

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”

-Ignatius of Antioch

Try again.

 

[Dalphon]

So if the Baltimore Bishops were teaching doctrines not approved by the Holy See isn’t that Protestantism?

Of course not. The Bishops would readily submit to the Holy See if any of their ideas were determined to be in error.

So they submitted their catechism which teaches about limbo, which is not a valid teaching and the Holy See determined it to be acceptable?

 

[Nanotwerp]

So they submitted their catechism which teaches about limbo, which is not a valid teaching and the Holy See determined it to be acceptable?

It speculated about Limbo.

Show me something in the Baltimore Catechism that proves otherwise.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Do better than that? Limbo was taught for centuries.

Sorry, no. It was around for centuries … as theological speculation.

Your local parish priest didn’t say it was a common belief or a theological hypothesis.

Mine sure did.

They just told you it was necessary to remove original sin. You couldn’t get into heaven with original sin on your soul. Of course no one wanted original sin on their child, so they did it.

And why wouldn’t you want to remove original sin?

Baptism IS normatively necessary.

 

[benhur]

Au contraire.
Do you worship Jesus as … president?
The Davidic Kingdom is the model for the Kingdom of God.
The bible promises that David’s Kingdom will be a universal and everlasting Kingdom (see for example Psalm 89:3-4, 2Samual 7).
In fact, the Davidic Kingdom was called, in scripture, the Kingdom of God.

Not contrary, that is that the Lord preferred to be the “invisible” yet ever present and performing leader of His people, as was before Saul. I did say the Lord made lemonade out of a bad decision by Israel, hence King of Kings for He fullfilled what David and all the other kings could not. So nothing contrary.

You should read this article:
BUT SURELY “QUEEN OF HEAVEN” WAS A PAGAN TITLE, USED OF ISIS AND ISHTAR. IT’S USE MUST BE UNCHRISTIAN.

This is a thoroughly bogus argument. There are a great many Pagan titles, and most make use of common forms of words. “King of Kings” was a title used by many Pagan Gods. So was “Son of God” and “Lord”. Jupiter was titled King of Heaven.

There is, however, as we have seen, an abundance of biblical proof that Mary’s Queenship is both proper, and scripturally based

]You are totally right, that we shouldn’t use guilt by association (like they baked cookies too). That does not, however, makes us abdicate our responsibility to sift out the good from the bad, and make sure no leaven is found in our final cookie dough. I understand your scriptural grounding but history has shown us that scripture can be “misinterpreted”. I also understand this is where you refer to rule #1 , that CC can not err in matters of faith. Not sure she has ruled dogmatically on her being queen of heaven., like the Assumption or Immaculateness.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So they submitted their catechism which teaches about limbo, which is not a valid teaching and the Holy See determined it to be acceptable?

You’ve been informed a few times that it doesn’t “teach” limbo, but rather offers a speculation about it.

From my previous post:
Here’s the quote FROM YOUR POST:
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.

“it is the common belief …”

Hardly a ringing endorsement, much, much, much less an infallible statement.

… and coming from a book meant to educate children and hardly a systematic theology.

Are you REALLY claiming this as evidence that the Church changed a doctrine?

Now, you’re again claiming that the BC “teaches about limbo”.

Saying something that’s untrue when you don’t know it’s untrue is a mistake. OTOH, repeating that untrue statement after you’ve been corrected, well, is dishonest.

 

[Dalphon]

That comment is pretty absurd, to be honest.

The Baltimore Catechism actually is still Catholicism; a very deserving catechism at that

The whole thing is absurd to me. You’re telling me it’s not official but it’s OK to use anyway.
The nuns always taught us the importance of the imprimatur. If it doesn’t have it then don’t use it. That goes for books, bibles or any other teaching tools.

 

[Randy_Carson]

yes but kings (and queens ) were not God’s perfect will and He only allowed it for Israel in their carnality( but poor Satan, for the Lord still made lemonade with it and someday the King of Kings will rule in God’s perfect will). Further, queen of heaven is found in jeremiah as something pagans (babylonians) and back slidden Jews did.

Unfortunately, you are in error…as I shall now demonstrate.

MARY, QUEEN OF HEAVEN

Many people object to the idea that Mary is called Queen of Heaven by Catholics because they are unaware of the fact that in the Davidic kingdom, it was the mother of the king (and not one of his many wives) that held the position of Queen.

Support for the principle of the Queen Mother in the House of David is found clearly in the following passages:

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother that sat on the throne. This idea is also evident in the book of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 13:18
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”

From these two passages, we can see that the mother of the king held the title of Queen in the Davidic kingdom.

This position carries over to the Kingdom of God, as well. Since Jesus inherited the throne of His forefather, David, it is logical that He would have a Queen. Of course, Jesus never married, but the principle of the Queen Mother was established long before, and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, should rightly be viewed as His Queen.

For additional support, you might consider the following:

QUEEN MOTHER: A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF MARY’S QUEENSHIP. By Edward Sri (Emmaus Road Publishing, 827 North Fourth St., Steubenville, Ohio 43952, 2005), xvi + 216 pp. PB $14.95.

The purpose of Edward Sri’s study is to prove the queenship of Mary as explicitly revealed in the scriptures. Therefore, the bulk of his research centers around key texts from the Old and New Testaments.

In surveying the Old Testament, the author considers the importance of the queen mother within the Davidic kingdom. It was the king’s mother who ruled as queen, not the king’s wife. This is portrayed in the prophetic tradition, specifically as seen in Isaiah 7:14 and prototypically in Genesis 3:15. These passages, in considering both Testaments, are eventually associated with Israel’s messianic hopes. Thus, in the structure of the Davidic kingdom in Judah and Israel, the mother of the king and queenship and kingship were inseparably linked.

 

[Dalphon]

You’ve been informed a few times that it doesn’t “teach” limbo, but rather offers a speculation about it.

Now, you’re again claiming that the BC “teaches about limbo”.

Saying something that’s untrue when you don’t know it’s untrue is a mistake. OTOH, repeating that untrue statement after you’ve been corrected, well, is dishonest.

Let’s say the BC never existed. Limbo was still taught by oral tradition - as a doctrine, not a speculation.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Not contrary, that is that the Lord preferred to be the “invisible” yet ever present and performing leader of His people, as was before Saul. I did say the Lord made lemonade out of a bad decision by Israel, hence King of Kings for He fullfilled what David and all the other kings could not. So nothing contrary.

You are totally right, that we shouldn’t use guilt by association (like they baked cookies too). That does not, however, makes us abdicate our responsibility to sift out the good from the bad, and make sure no leaven is found in our final cookie dough.

I would agree with your ‘baby with the bathwater’ statement, if Ignatius of Antioch didn’t confront the Docetists solely on their disbelief in the Eucharist’s Real Presence.

 

[pablope]

Let’s say the BC never existed. Limbo was still taught by oral tradition - as a doctrine, not a speculation.

Then can you cite a document from the Vatican that defined limbo as a doctrine?

By the way, do you even understand what a doctrine and dogma are?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So they submitted their catechism which teaches about limbo, which is not a valid teaching and the Holy See determined it to be acceptable?

I believe it has been explained to you that limbo was not a formally defined doctrine or dogma but a theological speculation. As such, it was always worthy of belief and yet subject to change.

Jimmy Akin cover this topic well here: jimmyakin.com/2007/04/limbo_document_.html

You’re not going to get a lot of mileage out of this.