Mateo el Feo Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1283931' date='May 29 2007, 11:30 PM']What you mean it proves you right? Thesselonian [among the others] said that the Roman Pope didn't say the quote that I provided, yet the numerous websites, proclaimed that he did say it.[/quote]Get back to me when you've actually read the webpage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1283974' date='May 29 2007, 08:48 PM']Get back to me when you've actually read the webpage.[/quote] LEt me post it: Is Limbo In Limbo? by Dominic Farrel, LC While the Vatican’s document prohibiting the ordination of men with marked homosexual tendencies to the priesthood has been on the front pages, the International Theological Commission has been working on what may be a far more ground-breaking issue. December 20, 2005 / While the Vatican’s document prohibiting the ordination of men with marked homosexual tendencies to the priesthood has been on the front pages, the International Theological Commission has been working on what may be a far more ground-breaking issue. On 7 October 2004 John Paul addressed the members of the International Theological Commission (ITC) and set its agenda for the next year. The first problem he asked them to study “is the question of the fate of children who die without Baptism.” In the same address the Pope also listed the Catholic doctrines ITC members would have to take into account in order to offer “a theological synthesis” for “consistent and enlightened pastoral practice.” If someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of theological debate reads this address, he may not see the problem the Pope was alluding to. So why has the fate of unbaptized infants always been such a thorny issue? Catholics believe that all men, with the exception of Mary and Jesus, are born with original sin. By the first sin Adam lost the original holiness he had received from God and was meant to pass on to his descendants. As a result of his sins, he transmitted to his descendants a human nature wounded by his sin, and deprived or original holiness. Original sin is the deprivation of this holiness, without which there is no communion with God in this life, nor in the next. Christ, however, redeemed us from sin and those who believe in him and are faithful to him regain holiness. Moreover, Baptism is necessary in order to receive Christ’s grace. For this reason the Church has always insisted that children be baptized as soon as possible. But what about children who die and have not been baptized? It is true that they have not committed any personal sins, and so cannot be condemned to hell. On the other hand they do bear original sin and have not received Christ’s grace. How then can they be admitted to heaven? An easy solution would be to say that God just has mercy on them. However, this solution is too easy because it forgets that every person needs Christ’s grace in order to be saved and plays down the gravity of original sin. Nor does it explain how deceased, unbaptized infants could receive Christ’s grace. Likewise, if they are going to be saved anyway, there would be no point in having young children baptized. And that is a position the Church cannot accept. From 28 November to 2 December the ITC has discussed this issue and prepared the draft of a document on it. Its plenary sessions have been chaired by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop William Levada. Up to his election to the See of Rome, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had chaired the ITC’s sessions during recent years. But why did John Paul II put this issue at the top of the ITC’s working agenda for this year? The Church teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Currently, however, so many children die without being baptized, chiefly because of abortion, or sometimes because nominally Catholic parents neglect to have them baptized. In this case, what happens to their souls? For centuries Catholics supposed that such children were destined to limbo. In Latin, limbo means “frontier”, “limit”. Theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, developed the concept of limbo infantium. Whereas those who die in God’s grace and friendship enjoy the vision of God and supernatural communion with him, souls in limbo would only have a far inferior, natural happiness, deprived of the possibility of contemplating God directly. Unlike the heavenly state of supernatural bliss, this would only be a state of natural happiness. They would be more like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, than the saints in heaven. It seemed necessary to presuppose this state of existence since babies had not committed personal sins and therefore could not be destined to hell or purgatory. Limbo, however, has fallen out of favour in recent years, mainly because it has no basis in the Bible nor in the belief of the first Christians. In fact, the Magisterium has never doctrinally defined limbo, even though some official papal documents mention it. In 1794 Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia’s accusation that the theory of limbo was a fable adopted from Pelagianism. However, Pius VI only condemned an offensive accusation made against a respectable theological theory. He did not define a doctrine. The 1905 Catechism of St Pius X teaches that children who die without being baptized are destined to limbo. However, the Catechism, which Pius X wrote before his elevation to the papacy, was never directed to the universal Church. It is not an authoritative papal definition. More authoritative is the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, significantly, does not mention limbo. Rather, n. 1261 teaches that the Church entrusts children who have died without Baptism to God’s mercy. It does not say what the Church believes, but only that it hopes that there is a “way of salvation” for them. It therefore leaves the issue open. The first edition of Evangelium Vitae n 99, however, raised the issue anew. John Paul II counselled women who had resorted to abortion on how to heal their personal guilt. Among other things he pointed out that they are able to ask forgiveness from their aborted child, “who is now living in the Lord”. This phrase implied that the souls of aborted infants are currently in heaven. However, it was removed from the official Latin version. It seems the Pope had taken too strong a position on a question still under discussion. The official edition says instead, “However, you can entrust your baby to the Father and his mercy with hope.” It basically repeats the Catechism’s position. Georges Cardinal Cottier, the former Theologian of the Papal Household, probably had a hand in that change. In an 29 November interview with an Italian newspaper, La Stampa, the former ITC member shed light on the current proceedings. “Many children die because they are victims,” he noted. “Martyrs is too strong a term, but they are certainly victims. They are victims of sin, and do not die a natural death as we do at a certain age, and after living a whole life.” As pope, Benedict XVI has not expressed his opinion., In his 1984 book-length interview with Vittorio Messori, however, he gave his personal view as a theologian. He noted that the Church has never defined limbo as a truth of the faith and that he would be in favour of dropping the idea altogether. “It is a thesis of secondary importance at the service of a truth that is absolutely primary for the faith: the importance of Baptism.” Although the ITC documents do not form part of the Church’s Magisterium, the Pope will certainly be taking their considerations into account. Indeed, we should all pray that God enlighten the Pope as he ponders this delicate issue. It will certainly help us all to value the importance of Baptism. It will also strengthen the culture of life, because whatever the outcome, the Church is teaching that aborted children are real persons. It may also bring greater hope to the parents of so many deceased children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1283974' date='May 29 2007, 08:48 PM']Get back to me when you've actually read the webpage.[/quote] It's important to note that I wasn't arguing on the side of the article, but simply that your former patriarch nonetheless did say those words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='mortify' post='1283742' date='May 29 2007, 08:07 PM']Just as an aside, Reza goes nuts if someone talks about the errors of Islam, but he/she ardently tries to prove errors in Catholicism.[/quote] Protestants are defensive. The Orthodox are generally defensive; at least the ones I've encountered certainly are. They're both protesting against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and trying to justify their separation from it. That's my take on it! Likos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Wow, you can't even post the correct link's text. When you figure out which of your links we were actually discussing, you can look at the section, "Update! Non-existent quote from Catechism of Pope Pius X." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='Katholikos' post='1284003' date='May 29 2007, 09:02 PM']Protestants are defensive. The Orthodox are generally defensive; at least the ones I've encountered certainly are. They're both protesting against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and trying to justify their separation from it. That's my take on it! Likos[/quote] The Orthodox Churches aren't "protesting" anything, this claim of yours is no different then your claim that the Orthodox Churches put emphesis on race [which isn't true either]. Before you make outlandish claims, make sure that you know our doctrines [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1284004' date='May 29 2007, 09:03 PM']Wow, you can't even post the correct link's text.[/quote] This is the problem, you come in the midst of a debate that's been going on for a while, and you stir confusion. I simply did a quick search for the quote, because numerous people said that the quote didn't exist. This isn't the first time that this has happened with you, and obviously isn't going to be the last time. Before you jump to conclusions why don't you read all the the links that were posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284002' date='May 30 2007, 12:02 AM']It's important to note that I wasn't arguing on the side of the article, but simply that your former patriarch nonetheless did say those words.[/quote]Actually, this isn't important. I've already stated what [i]is[/i] important: namely, limbo has never been a formally defined dogma of the Catholic Church, and Pope Benedict XVI has never "abolished" limbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1284016' date='May 29 2007, 09:07 PM']Actually, this isn't important. I've already stated what [i]is[/i] important: namely, limbo has never been a formally defined dogma of the Catholic Church, and Pope Benedict XVI has never "abolished" limbo.[/quote] You're in serious denial, it was written in the catechism but "it was never a defined dogma" right? but whatever... Edited May 30, 2007 by RezaLemmyng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284014' date='May 30 2007, 12:07 AM']This is the problem, you come in the midst of a debate that's been going on for a while, and you stir confusion. I simply did a quick search for the quote, because numerous people said that the quote didn't exist. This isn't the first time that this has happened with you, and obviously isn't going to be the last time. Before you jump to conclusions why don't you read all the the links that were posted?[/quote]What a lame excuse for a response. Yeah, it's all my fault that you don't read your own links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1284021' date='May 29 2007, 09:09 PM']What a lame excuse for a response. Yeah, it's all my fault that you don't read your own links.[/quote] No it's lame that you think that this discussion is about the articles themselves rather then the quote itself. If it was really about the articles, I would have provided better links then those above, it wasn't about their personal interpretations, it was about the quote itself. Edited May 30, 2007 by RezaLemmyng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284019' date='May 30 2007, 12:08 AM']You're in serious denial, it was written in the catechism but "it was never a defined dogma" right? but whatever... [/quote]Reza, your own anti-Catholic links contradict your claim that limbo was "written in the catechism." Read your link and quit with the false claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1284025' date='May 29 2007, 09:13 PM']Reza, your own anti-Catholic links contradict your claim that limbo was "written in the catechism." Read your link and quit with the false claims.[/quote] It's not a false claim, I provided seveeral links that discussed it [which I briefly skimmed], and you act like I'm in favor of every article, when it wasn't about the article but about the quote. Seriously go back to the beginning of this thread, and re-read everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 It's so cute to watch the Reza grasping at straws when he's been proven wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) [url=http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven/template_article.phtml?channel_id=16&article_id=3678[/url] is anti-catholic huh? I find it kinda humorous that you accuse me of posting "only anti-catholic" links, when you post anti-coptic links consistently and I'm supposed to consider those "credible". Edited May 30, 2007 by RezaLemmyng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284031' date='May 30 2007, 12:15 AM'][url="http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven...article_id=3678"]http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven...article_id=3678[/url] is anti-catholic huh?[/quote]Honestly Reza, you have some reading comprehension issues. Since I don't think you're going to figure it out on your own, here is my post: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=68295&st=60&p=1283899&#entry1283899"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1283899[/url] See if you can find which of your links I was talking about. Edited May 30, 2007 by Mateo el Feo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now