Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
please quote an authoritative source that tells us all that according to the Catholic Church Limbo was doctrine rather than just hopeful speculation.staff edit
You are, of course, absolutely correct that the Catholic Church taught what you reported and applied various sanctions in connection to that teaching (about Limbo). This was the church's stance for half a millennium until just recently.Albion was correct, as I specified, with regards to the Catholic church's teaching about Limbo for unbaptised infants and it being 'phased out'.
What the Catholic church teaches now, is not what was taught and believed by Catholics for centuries and centuries.
of course you can quote an Authoritative source from the Catholic Church that backs up your claims, but as we know, you will come up a bit short.You are, of course, absolutely correct that the Catholic Church taught what you reported and applied various sanctions in connection to that teaching (about Limbo). This was the church's stance for half a millennium until just recently.
please quote an authoritative source that tells us all that according to the Catholic Church Limbo was doctrine rather than just hopeful speculation.
thank you for proving me correct that Limbo was never doctrine.It was a 'theological hypothesis' that was based on the ideas of men and was developed and taught - the common teaching, doctrine, of the Catholic church, right up until the 20th century.
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised
There are people still alive today that remember it being taught to them.
You would do well to know what the church taught at one time with regards to the salvation of souls.
of course you can quote an Authoritative source from the Catholic Church that backs up your claims, but as we know, you will come up a bit short.
thank you for proving me correct!You obviously haven't read the document from the 'Authoritative source' that you requested from me.
I did. Limbo was never doctrine. Check your bias at the door before replying again.You really should read through the document before posting any more.
I did. Limbo was never doctrine. Check your bias at the door before replying again.
Albion does have a point when it comes to the Catholic church's teaching on Limbo for unbaptised infants, as it was considered for centuries as the common teaching in schools, taught by nuns and priests and promulgated throughout that time by popes and theologians 'as if' it was His Truth...to the point of assigning their bodies to be buried in separate graveyards outside of what the church considered 'consecrated' ground, but even more disturbingly - banishing them from His 'beatific vision' for eternity. However, this teaching that Catholics for centuries believed, by placing their faith in the Catholic church, caused such distress that the church decided to 'phase it out', after alllllllll those centuries finally admitting that there was no evidence of it being a 'revealed TRUTH' and that it would now encourage Catholics to have HOPE in the mercy and love of God.
So please tell us just 'what and who' the Catholic church "IS".
Perhaps you could check your attitude at the door before replying again....and please re-read the document.
1.4. The Medieval Scholastics
21. Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice.[43] The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament.[44] This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one's earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person's fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.
thank you for giving us examples of individuals who may have believed this or that. Btw, still waiting for proof the Limbo was doctrine in the Catholic Church.Perhaps you could check your attitude at the door before replying again....and please re-read the document.
1.4. The Medieval Scholastics
21. Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice.[43] The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament.[44] This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one's earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person's fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.
The word "doctrine" is used in difference senses, different meanings which are discerned rightly in a given context by those who know the Faith - and can be misunderstood by those who do not. "Doctrine" can include solemn and universal teaching - promulgated de fide, "of the Faith" - and binding on the faithful (ex: "the doctrine that God is a Trinity of Persons") or it can also be used to express something taught of much lesser weight, significance and consequence (ex: "we don't eat meat on Fridays"). The phrase "common doctrine" indicates right away it may have been "common" and even widespread, but not "universal and absolute, binding on all the faithful".
[the above is not theologically precise and quotable - forgive me for that please]
Those “individuals” – ECFs – developed and laid the groundwork for this common doctrine that popes and magisteriums fumbled around with for centuries.thank you for giving us examples of individuals who may have believed this or that. Btw, still waiting for proof the Limbo was doctrine in the Catholic Church.
Fide – Thank you for taking the time to clarify.
As you can see from the document that we both referred too, the ‘common teaching’ on Limbo for unbaptised infants was extremely ‘significant’, both for those during the centuries it was taught and finally enough so that the Catholic church held an International Theological Commission on it – and the same with regards the ‘consequences’ – as it dealt with the very salvation of souls and bound the faith of many of being able to have HOPE in a loving and merciful God.
Referring to it as being ‘not binding on all the faithful’ does not address the fact that for centuries it was developed, taught and allowed to be taught by popes. Faithful Catholics were not given a choice in the matter of accepting it or not as is evidenced by the graves of those little souls in unconsecrated grounds. They placed their faith in their church and its leaders/teachers – popes, magisterium, priests, nuns – expecting them to teach them the Truth, not suppositions and hypothetical theories.
-- "fumbled around with for centuries"? How about a little sympathy due in a theological difficulty for which there is still no certain resolution? -- Beyond, HOPE. We can be certain of the justice of God, but we cannot presume upon our judgments. We can hope in God. If that is not good enough for anyone, they can make up a denomination that teaches what they want to hear. The Catholic Church is confined to divine revelation.Those “individuals” – ECFs – developed and laid the groundwork for this common doctrine that popes and magisteriums fumbled around with for centuries.
The Church does not KNOW everything! She can teach definitively only that which she has been given - and she was given the necessity of Baptism. Hence the uncertainty concerning the fate of unbaptized children, hence the theological speculations, among them, "Limbo." The Church has been given much, concerning divine revelation. But not every possible question has been answered, definitively.
Yes, fumbled around for centuries - ranging from 'all the torments of Hell' to 'suffering, but not too much' to a kind of 'blissful ignorance'...then back to 'all the torments of Hell'.....then back to a kind of 'blissful ignorance'.....depending on different ideas of different men and on what 'heresy' they were attempting to combat at a particular time...but in all cases...depriving the infants of being with God. It was talked about in the odd Council....but then still allowed to be taught as their common teaching/doctrine 'as if' it were His Truth.....until they finally decided not teach it anymore. So no - no sympathy for those involved in the developing and approval of teaching this theory that was not HIS TRUTH.-- "fumbled around with for centuries"? How about a little sympathy due in a theological difficulty for which there is still no certain resolution? -- Beyond, HOPE.
We can be certain of the justice of God, but we cannot presume upon our judgments.
We can hope in God. If that is not good enough for anyone, they can make up a denomination that teaches what they want to hear.
Seriously!? If that were the case it would never have allowed a theory, based on the musings of men to be taught for all those years, a theory that dealt with the very salvation of souls....until....it wasn't taught anymore......The Catholic Church is confined to divine revelation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?