Why do other faiths believe we have pagan roots?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rarra1985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
[SIGN][/SIGN]

The early Church struggled against the heresy of Gnosticism.

Logical conclusions - Some early Christians (Catholics) believed the Gnostic Gospels.

The Catholic Church officially called Gnosticism heretical teaching even though the Gnostic Gospels sneaked their way into the church but I point out the Catholic Church condemned Gnostic teachings.

Now take a look into the teachings of Limbo:

Did the Catholic Church make the teachings of Limbo official with Magisterial Authority or did some Catholics wrongly believed in Limbo or confused Limbo as being the same as Purgatory?

Today some Catholics affirm gay marriage but the Catholic Church has not and most likely never affirm gay marriage as an official Majesterial teaching / Majesterial Authority ie Papal Authority.

Just because some teaching sneaks its way into the Church that doesn’t mean that teaching is affirmed by the Majesterium making it official Catholic teaching.

My point is this,

The teaching of Limbo. Was that teaching officially taught by the Church? Or did some Catholics wrongly make Limbo and Purgatory to be the same is calling Purgatory Limbo?

It’s important to make a distinction behind what some Catholics believe and what the Catholic Church officially teaches because Catholics can be uneducated about our Catholic Faith… (One of many reasons Catholic Answers was developed.)
You are talking about something I have not mentioned. We didn’t mix up limbo with purgatory. I don’t know anyone who did. However we were taught that limbo was the place where the souls of unbaptised infants went and when Jesus ‘descended into Hell’ in the Apostles Creed he went to Limbo. Purgatory is a different issue and still part of our beliefs
 
1Cor.10:2 “all were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, (Christ the Word of God) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them, and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST.”

Note: From this scripture, God is saying that the Rock is Christ, not Peter. It cannot be both.
Carmen-

You are correct. In that passage, Christ is the Rock.

But context is everything. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus names Himself as the builder and Peter is the rock. You see, there are many, many verses in scripture which refer to rock, foundation stones, etc., but you cannot mix the metaphors.

You may own a book or two which contain commentary by the famous Baptist scholar, Donald A. Carson. He has written:

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)
 
Luther strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money. “Indulgence.”
Depending on how you define “punishment for sin” Catholics could agree with what you have written.

Indulgences deal with the temporal consequences of sin not the eternal judgment.
Luther taught salvation and eternity in heaven is not earned by good deeds but received as a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin and subsequently from Hell. He challenged the authority of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge from God. He was a Friar, Priest and Theologian Professor.
Carmen
Yes, we know. 😉

The Catholic Church has never taught that we can earn our way into heaven. This position was re-iterated at the Council of Trent.
 
I think Christianity wisely took on board some local traditions. There is a lot of evidence for this in the Celtic Church. And it has to be said that some pagan beliefs (like Limbo) sneaked their way in too
Jimmy I’m merely quoting you!

There is a HUGE difference between what some Catholics believe and what the Catholic Church officially teaches! Some Catholics don’t necessarily have a theology that lines up with what the Catholic Church teaches.

ie “like limbo”
 
Jimmy I’m merely quoting you!

There is a HUGE difference between what some Catholics believe and what the Catholic Church officially teaches! Some Catholics don’t necessarily have a theology that lines up with what the Catholic Church teaches.

ie “like limbo”
Am I misunderstanding. Are we saying Limbo was never Catholic teaching?
 
Am I misunderstanding. Are we saying Limbo was never Catholic teaching?
I’m asking you to show me if that was officially taught by the Church or wondering if to some Catholics limbo meant purgatory?
 
By official taught means that the Church said it must be believed as a matter of faith. The article from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not do that.
The simple truth is this: it was taught from the pulpit, it was taught in school and we believed it. Now because we believe that it isn’t so. Because scholars and theologians, not least Pope Benedict have studied it and come to believe that it’s not so
 
The simple truth is this: it was taught from the pulpit, it was taught in school and we believed it. Now because we believe that it isn’t so. Because scholars and theologians, not least Pope Benedict have studied it and come to believe that it’s not so
But you do not find any document from the Church that said it must be believed. it was a hypothesis that was taught but never as an article of faith. It is unfortunate that the distinction that it was only a hypothesis was not taught as well. However, that error has been corrected.
 
Am I misunderstanding. Are we saying Limbo was never Catholic teaching?
Limbo was never a catholic teaching from the Magesterium. It was never defined as doctrine or dogma.

It was a theological speculation that became popular but was never more than a speculation.

If the church has said anything at all officially on the matter it has declared that limbo is not and never has been a doctrine.
 
But you do not find any document from the Church that said it must be believed. it was a hypothesis that was taught but never as an article of faith. It is unfortunate that the distinction that it was only a hypothesis was not taught as well. However, that error has been corrected.
It the same with a lot of tradition it wasn’t an article of faith (or was it what does the ‘descended into hell’ part of the apostle creed mean). Perhaps someone knows. There are loads of things we don’t have to believe as Catholics, Lourdes would be an example. But priests were teaching this

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm
 
Am I misunderstanding. Are we saying Limbo was never Catholic teaching?
Correct, it was a theological speculation put forth by some theologians. I was never an official Magisterial teaching of The Catholic Church.
 
Why did they put it in the Catechism then
The Baltimore catechism is not Magesterium. It is an american teaching aid.

The catechism of the Catholic Church does not speak of limbo.

I get that you were erroneously taught this but it was an error for them to teach it as anything more than an idea.
 
The Baltimore catechism is not Magesterium. It is an american teaching aid.

The catechism of the Catholic Church does not speak of limbo.

I get that you were erroneously taught this but it was an error for them to teach it as anything more than an idea.
I don’t believe in Limbo. I’m not sure I ever did. It is however an example of a ‘borrowing’ from other traditions. Can anyone enlighten me about the line in the Apostles Creed ‘…He descended into Hell’. This was taught to us as Jesus ‘unlocking’ the limbo of the Patriarchs and Prophets in order to allow them to share in the heavenly Kingdom. If it was taught incorrectly all I can say is that it was done so with the knowledge of the Bishops (I assume the American ones knew it was in their catechism) and it was taught in school uniformly because I’m not the only one who was taught it
 
I don’t believe in Limbo. I’m not sure I ever did. It is however an example of a ‘borrowing’ from other traditions. Can anyone enlighten me about the line in the Apostles Creed ‘…He descended into Hell’. This was taught to us as Jesus ‘unlocking’ the limbo of the Patriarchs and Prophets in order to allow them to share in the heavenly Kingdom. If it was taught incorrectly all I can say is that it was done so with the knowledge of the Bishops (I assume the American ones knew it was in their catechism) and it was taught in school uniformly because I’m not the only one who was taught it
This is correct but different than unbaptized infants. It is not limbo. Christ descended to the place of the dead to retrieve the righteous who awaited his unlocking of heaven. It’s said they were in Abraham’s bosom waiting.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/resua1.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top