Pope abolishes Limbo

[billythefish]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21595262-663,00.html

THE Vatican has determined that limbo does not exist, opening the gates of heaven to babies who die unbaptised, a member of a high-level theological commission.

"The many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved," says a document published by the US magazine Origins with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI.

The medieval concept of limbo as a place where unbaptised infants spend eternity but without communion with God seems to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation," the document says.
The thought that stillborn babies, for example, would be relegated to a kind of no-man's-land in the afterlife tormented generations of Catholic families.

For 800 years, thousands upon thousands of poor Catholics have believed that their dead babies had to spend eternity in some kind of no mans land, because God didn't want them. Now they've decided that that's BS and it's been abolished. How crusl is religion.

Just goes to show that they make this stuff up as they go along.

 

[beattyfamily]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21595262-663,00.html

For 800 years, thousands upon thousands of poor Catholics have believed that their dead babies had to spend eternity in some kind of no mans land, because God didn't want them. Now they've decided that that's BS and it's been abolished. How crusl is religion.

Just goes to show that they make this stuff up as they go along.

Fyi...There never has been nor is there any official Roman Catholic doctrinal position or teaching on the existence of or state of limbo.

 

[auntpolly]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21595262-663,00.html

For 800 years, thousands upon thousands of poor Catholics have believed that their dead babies had to spend eternity in some kind of no mans land, because God didn't want them. Now they've decided that that's BS and it's been abolished. How crusl is religion.

Just goes to show that they make this stuff up as they go along.

We just had an intelligent, interesting discussion about this a couple of days ago - don't know if the search function works, but you should read it if you get a chance. It was refreshingly minus the Catholic bashing!

 

[Fitswimmer]

Fyi...There never has been nor is there any official Roman Catholic doctrinal position or teaching on the existence of or state of limbo.

Why be concerned about facts when you can bash?

 

[auntpolly]

Why be concerned about facts when you can bash?

LOL only a non-Catholic would think we were all waking up going, "Oh man! You mean God does love all those babies??? Well color me shocked!!!"



We should actually start a thread - "Tell me the weirdo thing that you think about Catholics and we'll try to explain it to you."

 

[Buckalew11]

I really wonder how many people who lost babies believed that theory. maybe people who didn't lose babies thought it sounded OK but I'm guessing if you lost your own, you'd see things in the Bible like 1)"Let the little children come to Me, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven." and 2) To be absent for the body is to be present with the Lord and you'd get much comfort in thinking/believing your baby was in the arms of Jesus.

The fact there was no official stance on limbo speaks volumes to me. But I am glad that they have officially spoke out about it so that the old theory will be put to rest.

 

[Just Curious]

A careful study of any religion will show that belief systems and teachings change over time. However, I suppose it is easier to just bash Catholic beliefs than try to understand them.

 

[Fitswimmer]

LOL only a non-Catholic would think we were all waking up going, "Oh man! You mean God does love all those babies??? Well color me shocked!!!"



We should actually start a thread - "Tell me the weirdo thing that you think about Catholics and we'll try to explain it to you."

Wow, that would be some thread. We'd really have to get out the

I would NEVER presume that I know anything about any other religion. I know what I know about Catholicism because I actually studied the theology in a Catholic college. When it comes to threads that venture into belief, I feel pretty comfortable stating the Catholic position, and I like to ask others to define theirs so I understand.

 

[reddixie]

I am not Catholic and am shocked that this was even an issue. Not surprised that there was no official doctrine though. That happens everywhere not even just in religion. Someone says something stupid is a rule and it gets spread around and then believed. Glad that this Pope addressed the issue though. The bible is very specific about kids. They aren't punished for something they know nothing about. That is why the parents are responsible until they are old enough to understand. Just so the Catholics know, I for one would have never belived that you thought God didn't love babies. I know that a good friend of mine is Catholic and knows the bible better than I. So I would assume that others would as well. Not necessarily only Catholics.

 

[fan_of_small_world]

Billy, I would suggest doing a bit more research before spouting misguided insults.

From the NY Times (highlighting added by me): (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/w...en=369e4c4530b7180f&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS)

World Briefing | Europe
Vatican City: Pope Closes Limbo
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By IAN FISHER
Published: April 21, 2007
The netherworld of limbo, long speculated in Roman Catholic teaching as the destination of babies who die unbaptized, has been replaced with the “prayerful hope” that they reach heaven. Pope Benedict XVI signed a theological report, years in the making, that effectively demoted limbo, a place neither in heaven nor in hell, where unbaptized babies would not be in communion with God but would nonetheless enjoy eternal happiness. Many in the church felt the idea, never formally a part of church doctrine, was outdated and caused undue worry for parents.

 

[mirthmaiden]

Zipping up my flame-retardant suit...

I don't understand why asking somebody to defend their position on something - anything - is considered "bashing."

1 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV)

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

2 Timothy 2:14-15 (NIV)

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.


If you're going to discuss Christianity, you should have read and studied the Bible, specifically the New Testament, first and be prepared to defend your faith with scripture. Any religious practices ought to have basis in scripture and, if so, should be easy enough to defend. "A workman" = you. Individual you, not somebody else reading the Bible for you and telling you how to think and speak.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Next we can get rid of Purgatory.

Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was perfect. Our sins are completely washed away. No need for "Purgatorial" cleansing.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Zipping up my flame-retardant suit...

I don't understand why asking somebody to defend their position on something - anything - is considered "bashing."

1 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV)

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

2 Timothy 2:14-15 (NIV)

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.


If you're going to discuss Christianity, you should have read and studied the Bible, specifically the New Testament, first and be prepared to defend your faith with scripture. Any religious practices ought to have basis in scripture and, if so, should be easy enough to defend. "A workman" = you. Individual you, not somebody else reading the Bible for you and telling you how to think and speak.

Read it myself several times-thank you very much. I especially enjoyed those sections about charity towards others and judgement...have you seen those?

 

[beattyfamily]

Next we can get rid of Purgatory.

It's no going to happen.

 

[mirthmaiden]

Read it myself several times-thank you very much. I especially enjoyed those sections about charity towards others and judgement...have you seen those?

Uh huh. And if you're implying that I am "judging" you, please indicate exactly where I did that. I did not mention any specific religous denomination nor anybody's name. Didn't even quote anyone. How is asking somebody to defend their statements being judgemental?

This "non-judgement" quip is often used as a defense, but Christians are called upon to evaluate other's actions against the scriptures. We are to be "fruit inspectors" of a sort. We are not to judge other in the sense of pronouncing condemnation upon them. That is God's job, which He has already done through His word. The conflict comes up because the word "judge" can be interpreted 2 ways: to evaluate or to pronounce sentence.

Matthew 7:15-20

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do peole pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

This means that as a Christian I should listen to everything and examine actions of others and compare those things to scripture. That is how I judge (evaluate) what is good and bad.

 

[Tiggeroo]

Ok, former Catholic here. I know it says it was never a formal part of their teaching. But, honestly, my grandmothers and elderly aunts who were hard-core Catholics believed it. There was no doubt they believed it and that their priests were aware they believed it and encouraged it. Babies in my family were not allowed out of the house and contact with alot of people was discouraged until they were baptized. If a baby was born sickly a priest was at the hospital to baptize that baby to prevent theis possibility.
I really try not to bash the Catholic church. It gave enormous comfort to my grandmothers and my mother today is an ardent Catholic.
However, some of the criticisms against the church are valid. And the doctrine of infallability of the Pope gives an undue amount of power to one man, and allows doctrine to be changed on whim.
I attend a non-denominational church today, and my faith is every bit as serious as a Catholics. But i chose a non-denom church because their belief is other then things in black and white in the bible, your choices are between man and God. And even with issues in black and white, God is compassionate and they don't pretend to have all the answers.
But God loves all people who love him, and do good in his name. And this includes Catholics. It's wrong for Christians to criticize each other, no matter what church they attend. But you can have a healthy discussion about matters of faith and not be bashing each other. Just stating your opinions.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Uh huh. And if you're implying that I am "judging" you, please indicate exactly where I did that. I did not mention any specific religous denomination nor anybody's name. Didn't even quote anyone. How is asking somebody to defend their statements being judgemental?

This "non-judgement" quip is often used as a defense, but Christians are called upon to evaluate other's actions against the scriptures. We are to be "fruit inspectors" of a sort. We are not to judge other in the sense of pronouncing condemnation upon them. That is God's job, which He has already done through His word. The conflict comes up because the word "judge" can be interpreted 2 ways: to evaluate or to pronounce sentence.

Matthew 7:15-20

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do peole pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

This means that as a Christian I should listen to everything and examine actions of others and compare those things to scripture. That is how I judge (evaluate) what is good and bad.

You can try to tell yourself you aren't being judgemental, but when you use the discourse on Matthew about "false prophets" your quotes speak for themselves.

To imply that Catholics do not listen to everything, examine the actions of others and compare those to Scripture as you do is also saying that you have done something superior or somehow different than what we have done. How do you know??

Christians are called to evaluate their OWN actions against Scripture. They are NOT called to judge others. You have chosen what is best for you based on your examination of Scripture and what you have heard and seen. I've done EXACTLY the same thing, but reached a different conclusion. I honor your choice, it is between you and God-as is mine and everyone elses.

 

[auntpolly]

I'll defend my faith until the end and answer any question - but this just isn't a good example of where I should have to do it.

Yes there are some old superstitions lingering in some older members of the church, but priests are pretty darned modern these days and pretty intellectual, at least this is my experience.

Do I really have to get answer to everything that has happened in the whole history of the Catholic Church - you know we aren't burning people at the stake for teaching the world is round, don't you?

besides, I tried to start a thread to answer any serious questions about Catholicism and it disappeared before you could say, transubstantiation.

 

[marybet]

Maybe it wasn't official but it was taught in the Catholic school I went to, for one horrible year.

My favorite was when it was no longer a sin to eat meat on Fridays. I got in such trouble as a child because I did not eat fish. I still remember being yelled at in the confessional because I had a hamburger on a Friday. I never went back to confession after that. I stayed a Catholic a lot longer than I should have because of early brainwashing that I would go to hell if I stopped being a Catholic. But when they changed the meat eating rules, I knew I had made the right choice.

I did give the nuns a hard time, always asking questions in catechism class. In those days kids who went to Catholic school made their first communion in the 2nd grade. If you only went to catechism class you were lucky if they let you do it by the 8th grade. So when I was in the 4th grade my mother made us go to Catholic school so we could make our fist communion, my sisters were in the 5th grade. Every day we got to go to the 2nd grade and learn our catechism. Catechism was a question, followed by an answer that we memorized. Example: Who is God? God is good. Where is God? God is everywhere. After that I went back to the public school and my sisters stayed in the Catholic school. They are still Catholic. I am an atheist. My mother belonged to the Presbyterian church when she died.

 

[mirthmaiden]

You can try to tell yourself you aren't being judgemental, but when you use the discourse on Matthew about "false prophets" your quotes speak for themselves.

They are not my quotes. Somebody else said them. Just using them to illustrate why I evaluate other's words and actions against the scriptures. Christians are called to "judge" in that sense of the word.

To imply that Catholics do not listen to everything, examine the actions of others and compare those to Scripture as you do is also saying that you have done something superior or somehow different than what we have done. How do you know?? 1. I don't know and didn't claim to.
2. Never mentioned Catholics. Could apply to many religious affiliations. 3. How on earth was I saying I've done something superior? I've done what I'm told to do by God as a Christian. If that's "superior" good. I hope HE thinks so when I meet him face to face. Not worried about what anybody else thinks.

Christians are called to evaluate their OWN actions against Scripture. Yes, and I do that. That's when I realize how far short I fall and how very much I need Jesus Christ as my savior.

They are NOT called to judge others. They are told to evaluate everything against the scriptures. In the English language, the words "evaluate" and "judge" are often used interchangably. So, yes... in that sense, they are to judge other's words and actions, not pronounce judgement upon others for their words and actions.

You have chosen what is best for you based on your examination of Scripture and what you have heard and seen. I've done EXACTLY the same thing, but reached a different conclusion. I honor your choice, it is between you and God-as is mine and everyone elses.

Yes. We all have free will, which is precisely why God would not hold an infant or mentally incapacitated person accountable. Those would not have the free will to accept Christ as their savior. Every person makes a choice. If you choose not choose, you've made a choice. An infant would have no choice for him/herself.

Just a thought. Consider for a moment if there truly was no "judgement" of anybody else's words or actions in this world. Is it that what God would want? Is it what you would want? Would it be OK if somebody murdered your children today? Would it be OK if I drank a bottle of whiskey and then drove to the liquor store? How about if I'm your teacher and I feel like lacing my lecture with some obscene words? What do you think about those kinds of actions? If you have any opinion at all, pro or con, you are "judging." The world needs judgement. Without it there would be complete chaos.