Anyone that has struggled with Catholicism - please reply.

[mmarco]

3. I have no idea who is saved in Catholic teaching. Ask anyone older and you'll hear the "Oh yeah, when I was a kid if you were not Catholic you were going to hell." That did not come from nowhere, Boniface the VIII papal bull stating all living creatures had to be subject to the Roman pontiff for salvation.
Today the Catechism says you can be any of a variety of false, pagan faiths and still be saved.
On the fair side - Catholicism is the only faith I find that has what I'd call the best moral teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life in general.

Anyone else been through all this and actually stayed Catholic?

Hi, certainly I have been through all that.
When I was a child I was taught that babies who died without being baptized could not go to heaven but they went to the Limbo.
Even if I was a child, I strongly rejected such an idea; it was absolutely incompatible with my idea of loving God. Thank God, now that teaching has been eliminated from the cathechism. The Bible teaches that, after His death, Christ went to announce the Gospel to those who died without knowing Him. I think it is illogial to think that God does not give the same chance of salvation to those who, even if they have lived after Christ, did not have the chance to know His teachings.
Paul writes: 1 Cor 8 Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Our understanding of the infinite mistery of God's Mercy is still in progress.
When we will see the Lord face to face, we will understand everything.

On the other hand, Jesus never gave us a list of dogmas to accept and He never kept lessons of theology; He asks us to love Him, to keep His commandments and to love our neighbour.

You acknowledge that the Catholic Church has the best moral teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life in general. I do not think that the issues you have raised are valid reasons not to be catholic.

I hope this may help.

 

[VincentIII]

Regarding your last point, the Church has no authority to impose catechism classes on the faithful. They can only provide resources, and you know there are many, many out there. I am a catechist precisely because, when I was converted, my RCIA classes were just so...I wanted meat, I got crackers. I had to research the meat myself, which I wanted to do before I came into the Church.

I didn't mean that the Church should impose catechism. I'd like to see more people seek it out.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi, certainly I have been through all that.
When I was a child I was taught that babies who died without being baptized could not go to heaven but they went to the Limbo.
Even if I was a child, I strongly rejected such an idea; it was absolutely incompatible with my idea of loving God. Thank God, now that teaching has been eliminated from the cathechism. The Bible teaches that, after His death, Christ went to announce the Gospel to those who died without knowing Him. I think it is illogial to think that God does not give the same chance of salvation to those who, even if they have lived after Christ, did not have the chance to know His teachings.
Paul writes: 1 Cor 8 Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Our understanding of the infinite mistery of God's Mercy is still in progress.
When we will see the Lord face to face, we will understand everything.

On the other hand, Jesus never gave us a list of dogmas to accept and He never kept lessons of theology; He asks us to love Him, to keep His commandments and to love our neighbour.

You acknowledge that the Catholic Church has the best moral teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life in general. I do not think that the issues you have raised are valid reasons not to be catholic.

I hope this may help.

You know we no longer believe Limbo? It wasn't a doctrine, it was just an idea. But we believe God is merciful with the ignorant.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I didn't mean that the Church should impose catechism. I'd like to see more people seek it out.

I agree with you. It has to be done with our own will to do so. So many aren't willing to invest that way. I've been Catholic 13 years now, and seldom have I read anything other than Catholic books, whether history, pope's writings, Catholic evangelists writings, and so on. I have about 10 books that are not Catholic.

It would help if our priests were better coaches. A good coach helps a good athlete become great. I have a survey that shows that about 7% of Catholics provide all the needs of the Church, financial, personnel, etc. Imagine, 77 million people in the world provide for the mission of the Catholic Church. A 1% increase would mean 11 million more.

 

[mmarco]

You know we no longer believe Limbo? It wasn't a doctrine, it was just an idea. But we believe God is merciful with the ignorant.

I certainly know, but it was a doctrine when I was a child; in fact it was on the official Pious X Catechism and it was taught to millions and millions of children like myself.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I certainly know, but it was a doctrine when I was a child; in fact it was on the official Pious X Catechism and it was taught to millions and millions of children like myself.

It was never a doctrine. In the Baltimore Catechism.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

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.
The process of doing away with Limbo began under the late John Paul II. He was backed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who, as John Paul II’s guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy once observed that Limbo had “never been a definitive truth of the faith. Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis”.

 

[zippy2006]

You know we no longer believe Limbo? It wasn't a doctrine, it was just an idea. But we believe God is merciful with the ignorant.

Limbo has been a dominant theological opinion in the Church and it still remains a permissible opinion.

"Papal interventions during [the post-Tridentine era], then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century."

"Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture..."

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised​

 

[mmarco]

It was never a doctrine. In the Baltimore Catechism.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven;”.

As you can see, the Baltimore Catechism taught that babes who die without baptism cannot go to heaven; this was a doctrine and not an hypothesis, and this is what I couldn't accept when I was a child.

 

[zippy2006]

The main objection to sweeping limbo under the carpet comes from the idea of the sensus fidelium, which is perhaps pertinent to the larger questions in this thread. Obviously the 20th century nouvelle theologie hasn't been much of a friend to the sensus fidelium.

Sensus fidei in the life of the Church (2014)

 

[zippy2006]

Hi, certainly I have been through all that.
When I was a child I was taught that babies who died without being baptized could not go to heaven but they went to the Limbo.
Even if I was a child, I strongly rejected such an idea; it was absolutely incompatible with my idea of loving God.

Interestingly, I had a very similar experience as a child. It has very little to do with Limbo, though. Limbo is the idea that although an unbaptized infant doesn't go to Heaven, it also doesn't go to Hell. The idea that an unbaptized infant doesn't go to Heaven is older and different from limbo, and is related to the notion that baptism confers sanctifying grace and saves a person. The real opposition to Limbo has come from groups who think unbaptized babies go to Hell. Abelard proposed Limbo because he took exception to that idea as being unjust.

 

[mmarco]

Interestingly, I had a very similar experience as a child. It has very little to do with Limbo, though. Limbo is the idea that although an unbaptized infant doesn't go to Heaven, it also doesn't go to Hell. .

Probably I did not express myself clearly; what I couldn't accept as a child was the idea that unbaptized babes couldn't go to heaven.

 

[zippy2006]

Probably I did not express myself clearly; what I couldn't accept as a child was the idea that unbaptized babes couldn't go to heaven.

Sure, that makes sense. I think it is quite common for people to think that Limbo means unbaptized infants can't go to Heaven, so I just wanted to take an opportunity to clarify a bit. It's more accurate to say that Limbo means unbaptized infants can't go to Hell.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Limbo has been a dominant theological opinion in the Church and it still remains a permissible opinion.

"Papal interventions during [the post-Tridentine era], then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century."

"Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture..."

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised​

Well, Pope Benedict XVI said it should be completely done away with. It's not a possible theological option, now. Innocents go to heaven.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As you can see, the Baltimore Catechism taught that babes who die without baptism cannot go to heaven; this was a doctrine and not an hypothesis, and this is what I couldn't accept when I was a child.

But you missed the last part. It's not a doctrine. I understand that a child will believe as he's told, and I understand you'd be sad to hear it, but hopefully, later on, you could see that, because mortal sin requires malice aforethought (you have to know you're commiting a sin and do it freely anyway), that there would be no pain for such a person. However, we now believe that God in His Mercy, grants it to those who, through no fault of their own, were not baptized.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, Pope Benedict XVI said it should be completely done away with. It's not a possible theological option, now. Innocents go to heaven.

No, Joseph Ratzinger remarked in a private opinion to JPII that he thought it should go away. He wasn't the pope, he wasn't making an infallible statement, and he wasn't even acting in his official capacity as head of the CDF. If you read the post you responded to you will find that the International Theological Commission affirmed that it is a possible theological opinion. They did this in 2007, long after Ratzinger's private comment, during Benedict XVI's pontificate. Here it is again, with emphasis:

"Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture..." (The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised)
​

What you are doing is spreading lies and misrepresenting the Catholic Faith. I don't care about your personal opinions. I care about what the Church teaches. And She does not teach that Limbo is not a permissible theological opinion. If you want to publish your own opinions as dogma, go found another Protestant denomination.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, Joseph Ratzinger remarked in a private opinion to JPII that he thought it should go away. He wasn't the pope, he wasn't making an infallible statement, and he wasn't even acting in his official capacity as head of the CDF. If you read the post you responded to you will find that the International Theological Commission affirmed that it is a possible theological opinion. They did this in 2007, long after Ratzinger's private comment, during Benedict XVI's pontificate. Here it is again, with emphasis:

"Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture..." (The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised)
​

What you are doing is spreading lies and misrepresenting the Catholic Faith. I don't care about your personal opinions. I care about what the Church teaches. And She does not teach that Limbo is not a permissible theological opinion. If you want to publish your own opinions as dogma, go found another Protestant denomination.

The Church no longer holds that an unbaptized child will not go to heaven. As your post shows, it is a possible theological opinion, not a doctrine.
From the same document:
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

See? I'm not spreading lies. I'm sorry the Church affected you this way so strongly, even if it was out of concern for everyone's immortal soul. Believe what you want. But there it is. And it's not my opinion. If it was, I would have started with "It is my opinion"...or some such.

 

[zippy2006]

See? I'm not spreading lies. I'm sorry the Church affected you this way so strongly, even if it was out of concern for everyone's immortal soul. Believe what you want. But there it is. And it's not my opinion. If it was, I would have started with "It is my opinion"...or some such.

No, you are spreading falsehoods, common lies in our era. You said, "[Limbo is] not a possible theological option, now. Innocents go to heaven." Two sentences. Both false. The Church does not teach that Limbo is an impermissible opinion, nor does She teach that "innocents go to heaven."

 

[Root of Jesse]

What I said is that the church no longer teaches limbo. Its not mentioned in the Catechism. It was a theory which is just...speculation.

 

[zippy2006]

What I said is that the church no longer teaches limbo.

No, you said, "It's not a possible theological option." Please tell the truth.

Its not mentioned in the Catechism. It was a theory which is just...speculation.

It's not mentioned in the current catechism, but it has been taught to and believed by the lay community for over 1,000 years. It's not a mere speculative theory, and we have living proof of this fact in people like mmarco.

I'm growing so tired of people who have no interest in telling the truth. In politics, in religion, in science... The virtue of truth has all but disappeared.

 

[mmarco]

The idea that unbaptized babes go to Hell was also stated in the papal bull Laetentur Coeli issued on 6 July 1439 by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Ferrara-Florence.

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

As I said, our understanding of the infinite Mercy of God is still in progress.