Catholic tradition of Limbo

This is certainly a change from when I was a child growing up. My entire family was Catholic, and I remember that when a baby was born, it was very important that the baby be baptized as soon as possible. It was believed that if the baby died without being baptized, he or she could not go to heaven, but would go to Limbo instead. When my own son was born in 1983, we had him baptized when he was about six weeks old; and my mother thought we waited too long.

I don't know if Limbo was official Catholic teaching at the time, but it was certainly the commonly held belief among the Catholics I knew.

 

Priscilla,

It was similar in the Anglican Church. Must baptize and infant as soon as they leave hospital to rid them of original sins. Baptism did not provide eternal salvation, only temporal relief from original sin, should something fatal happen before they can repent and believe.

Interesting.

Cheers,

Jim

Prayer Book: We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock, and do sign him with the sign of the cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the devil, and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. Amen

Notice that salvation is an act that follows in this person's life....

 

Limbo was always on the fringe of Catholic doctrine and I think that this is the first of many quiet-ish changes we will see to Catholic doctrine under +++Benedict's pontificate.

 

Catholics change its doctrine from time to time so as to be suitable for the era and for the world at that time.
They created Purgatoty by Rules of Majority and someday it may be jettisoned.

Human being, Pontiff decide whether anyone go to the heaven directly without passing through Purgatory, by canonizing as a Saint, and leave the others as going to the Purgatory.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15:9)

 

Limbo has been de-emphasized for a long time and I thought it was already dropped from Catholic doctrine but I guess the RCC hierarchy never does anything quickly.

 

Limbo was not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was a teaching that was circulated, but never part of doctrine. If it were declared doctrine, then it could not, by definition, be changed.

 

Purgatory is established in doctrine, I believe, so it won't be changed. That which is declared doctrine is done so by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and can not be altered. Catholic doctrine has not been changed in the 2000 years of the Church.

Purgatory, as a term, was not created by "Rules of Majority" (whatever that means), but through inspired Apostolic teaching and brief scriptural references. The Pope can not decide who goes through purgatory, only God. The Church only declares who does not.

Fortunately, we only believe the doctrines from the Lord.

 

Limbo was not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was a teaching that was circulated, but never part of doctrine. If it were declared doctrine, then it could not, by definition, be changed. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought it was part of the catechism? It was certainly what I was taught when being brought up Catholic

 

No, limbo is not in the catechism. The catechism covers unbaptized babies in line 1261, which I will quote below.

It should be noted that just because something is in the catechism doesn't make it a doctrine of the Church. The catechism contains both infallible teachings of the Church and offers the current line of thinking on various things, "fallible" teachings if you will.

People will sometimes mistake various ideas within the Church, as well as traditions and practices as 'doctrines'. Doctrines do not change and are not removed, nor can they simply come out of thin air- being from either apostolic teaching in Holy Tradition or Scripture.


1261: "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,"[63] 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."

 

In the RC view - an infant that is not Baptized DOES NOT go to heaven if it should die.

An infant that IS baptized DOES go to heaven.

So how is it you claim they are not claiming that Baptism avails the infant of eternal salvation??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Challenge #1 - IF the Catechism IS NOT the body of infallible doctrines of the RCC - what is??

Please point to the list, the document that the RCC will stand up and admit to being "The list of infallible teachings".

#2. How can Limbo be "tossed out" if it was "never in"?? How can so many Catholics be taught to fear it - when IT is never a doctrine??


#3. In the catechism quote - you do not address the point about infants who ARE baptized having their "soul marked" and being slated for heaven. "Eternal salvation if they die".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'm sorry, but that's not true. You are generalizing Catholic views and trying to contort them into legalistic views.

 

I'm really not here to answer challenges. If you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer. To answer your question, Magisterium is the infallible doctrines of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a synthesis of Scripture, Holy Tradition and Magisterium.

That would be Scripture, Holy Tradition and Magisterium. You can point to the bible to see infallible teachings, the synods, Councils, Ex-Cathedra declarations and Holy Tradition within patristic writings to find all three of these.

Limbo was a theological belief developed and circulated by some people in the Church centuries ago to offer some explanation as to what happens to the unbaptized. It gained popularity with most of the clergy, but was never addressed by a council, synod or ex-cathedra decree. Therefore, it was never a doctrine. It was not something taught as a doctrine either- people were free to accept or reject it.
What I believe is going on here is the Pope asking that most clergy consider not favoring the belief.

What 'point' are you wondering about, specifically? I'm not sure what question you are asking?

 

Though the successors and teaching of the apostles, Holy Tradition and Scripture.

1 Corinthians 13 speaks of the fire that shall test and purify men. As well:

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." - Mat 18:34-35

Hell is not temporary as is described here.

Something is supported via scripture and Holy Tradition before being declared and defined as doctrine.

Are you asking for the actual doctrine or Holy Tradition and Scriptural support?

By what are you declaring this a doctrine since it is a Bull and does not carry with it Ex-Cathedra status, as far as I am aware?

Do you want to really discuss this in depth and the circumstances around separating yourself from the Church or do you just wish to portray this in a legalistic fashion so that people will believe that the Catholic Church teaches that unless you are Catholic, you will go to hell?

If you wish just to site a few pieces of what a pope says and make it sound like we think all those who aren't Catholic go to hell, then feel free to on this baptist forum. However, if you wish to discuss this in context and with what the Church means, I'll be happy to continue. I'm here and will gladly discuss with you what we believe. I realize there are people that are honestly curious and those that just wish to make us look like we think everyone who isn't Catholic is going to hell. I just want to make sure which you are, so I'm not arguing with a wall or anything

Anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church knows this is absolutely absurd. Do I admit that some sites, some books, without any citation, wish to make it seem like that Catholic Church prohibited the bible? Absolutely. It is popular to portray Catholics as biblically ignorant Christians being fed lies by the Church. However, the Mass, the divine liturgy, calls for quotes from the OT, the Epistles and two Gospels. I go to a Tridentine Mass, a very ancient Mass, and we hear from the bible, and quotes from the the Gospel, twice, regardless of what is going. In fact, every three years the entire Gospel is covered by each Sunday Mass. More current Masses also call for citations from Prophetic books of the OT, other OT books, the Gospel and the Epistles, to be read aloud in entirity after a period of three years.
Furthermore, Catholics are given passages from the bible in each bulletin at the end of Mass to read each day. The Catholic Church teaches that so many problems are due to a lack of biblical literacy and that it is good for the soul to read the scripture daily.

Now, what do you mean by the Council of Toulouse? There are only 21 Ecumenical Councils:
Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, Nicaea II, Constantinople IV, Lateran I, Lateran II, Lateran III, Lateran IV, Lyons I, Lyons II, Vienne, Constance, Florence, Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II

Could you please cite the decrees forbidding the reading of Scripture? That would be particularly bizarre, considering that the bible was read from 4-5 passage at a time, over a period of 3 years to cover entire books at each Latin Mass. If there were any truth to this, then one could easily cite what was stated, instead of 'informing' us what was stated.

That site is nothing but a series of lies and anti-Catholic proganda.

The Catholic Church preserved and canonized the bible for 1500 years until the Reformation, which got the bible from the documents preserved by the Church. The bible was canonized by the Church. Not only did the Church work to preserve and speak the whole Gospel to all believers for 2000 years, but work diligently to promote an understanding and application of the Gospel. Catholics used to pack Churches after Sunday Mass to hear sermons from priests. As though the hours of prayers, Gospels, Epistles, OT readings and hymns were not enough.. they wanted even more!

The Pope is no more infallible than an apostle. Like his apostolic successors, the Pope can make decrees which are from God, like Peter did in Matthew 16. These don't make the Pope 'infallible' he is still a moral human being.

No, the sale of indulgences was never right and was a gross abuse of Catholic doctrine at the time. It was done by local clergy to fund community projects. One can study what was believed by the Church about indulgences at the time and the idea of selling indulgenes, especially for the souls of others, is an absolute contradiction of our beliefs.

First, we must realize what purgatory is.
Purgatory is not a second chance, nor a way for the unsaved to make it to Heaven. It is only for the saved who, in scarring their souls of sin, have such imperfections purged from them. Like a plank of wood with nails hammered in, even if the nails are removed from the wood, like sins from our soul, the damage of the nail remains and must be repaired.

The thief, in suffering horrible punishment, paid his dues. He in fact, is a saint. Mother Teresa, unless she is declared a saint, is presumed to have gone through purgatory.

If I've missed anything, please let me know. There are so many lies and myths about Catholics I'm not sure where to begin. I'm getting ready to go to Church in a few hours, but tell me if I've missed or not discussed anything enough.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What is the biblical basis for Purgatory except Apocrypha?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then the RCC is "dead wrong". 1 Cor 3 says NOTHING about the PERSON being burned or tried by fire - the RCC will sometimes "make that up" but there is nothing in 1Cor 3 about that.

(And BTW - there is nothing in 1Cor 13 about that "either" )

Then the RCC is "dead wrong again".

In Matt 18 ALL the debt owed is forgiven "ALL"!! When the slave refuses to forgive others ALL his debt must be paid. This totally removes Matt 18 from the RCC concept of purgatory because of the following:

#1. The RCC teaches that the mortal sins CAN NOT be paid for in Purgatory. Were such a debt of sin to be RETURNED then the sinner would be in HELL EVEN by RCC standards!

(And skipping church on Sunday EVEN ONCE without a good reason is a mortal sin according to the RCC).

#2. In Matt 18 -- ALL SIN (venial and mortal) is forgiven. The RCC teaches that venial sins are NOT forigiven in this life but they are PAID FOR by the person who suffers IN THIS LIFE for them. If that person has not PAID ENOUGH - then in Purgatory they are tormented for the remaining PAYMENT.

The entire system of indulgences is based on the mythical notion that the saints PAID MORE (in torment and sufferng) THAN THEY OWED in this life for venial sins so their EXCESS torment is available to PAY for what we might owe when we go to purgatory!

RC members are considered "unloving and unkind" if THEY leave a loved one in God's Purgatory for as long as God would have them left in there. They are considered 'bad children' if they do not seek indulgences for their dead ancestors.

In Christ,

Bob

 

There are NO statements in Catholic Doctrine preceeded by the claim "Ex Cathedra" in fact the entire idea of "only infallible when said Ex Cathedra" was only invented in the 19th century.

If you have a list of historic "Ex Cathedra" statements for a policy/process that was only invented in the 19th century and has never been invoked in that format - please provide the document that shows it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The point is really simple if you care to address it.

#1. According to RC teaching when a Baptized infant dies do they go to heaven -- yes or no will do.

#2. According to RC treaching when a non-Baptized infant dies are they guaranteed to go to heaven -- a simple yes or no will do to illustrate your point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Parenthetical notes “mine”.

This is not the claim of some mean-spirited or ill-informed non-Catholic. These are well-known RC sources reporting on the facts of history in Catholicism!

(Though it is not uncommon to find Catholic apologists "turning on" their OWN RC historians and publications that "admit too much" of actual history in print.)

In Christ,

Bob