Ghosts

[Jaime]

A friend of mine bought us tickets to a tour of a haunted theater in St Paul. It was a pretty cool tour and she ended up having something happen to her. since she is more skeptical than I, I thought it was awesome that she got played with.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1815560' date='Mar 24 2009, 03:17 PM']A friend of mine bought us tickets to a tour of a haunted theater in St Paul. It was a pretty cool tour and she ended up having something happen to her. since she is more skeptical than I, I thought it was awesome that she got played with.[/quote]
What happened to her?

[Jaime]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1815570' date='Mar 24 2009, 02:53 PM']What happened to her?[/quote]

We were downstairs hearing about various sightings and at one point the guides turned all the lights out for about 10 minutes. When it was over, she whispered to me "you're not fooling me". When I told her that I didn't know what she was talking about, she told me that she knew that I had tugged her hair. while that is exactly what I would do, I had to tell her that I had not done that. It took me 15 minutes to convince her it wasn't me. That weirded her out big time.

She then showed me how hard her hair got tugged. While not painful, it certainly was forceful

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1815480' date='Mar 24 2009, 12:15 PM']But why would the Apostles reference something that does not exist? They had to have a reference of some type of "ghost" in order to call Jesus one.[/quote]

Let me better clarify. I have heard numerous stories about ghosts but I have never seen one before. If I believe in ghosts, it is based on the stories I have heard, as well as common superstitions (the old "Bloody Mary" tale). The mentality during the time of the apostles was probably along these lines - if they (I mean people in general, not necessarily the apostles) could not explain something, they probably connected it to some sort of supernatural occurrence.

Christ did not come to the apostles and say "I am not a ghost or a spirit, but rather risen." Christ only told the apostles that he was NOT a ghost because they were afraid and automatically jumped to that conclusion - and in my opinion they jumped to this conclusion based on what they had heard (stories from their grandfathers, who knows).

[quote]Also, I don't think the argument is that a ghost is someone "trapped on earth" but, rather, one who has already faced judgment, been dealt Purgatory, and their Purgatory is getting more people to pray for them. The saints are constantly speaking about how they see the ghosts of those whom they knew and immediately realized they were asking prayers of that saint.[/quote]

This is a very common viewpoint (ghosts = souls who had not moved on). My Dad watches these ghost shows ALL the time.

[quote]Incidentally, I never really knew what to believe, in terms of ghosts, until I spoke to an exorcist, that opened my eyes and understanding to a whole other world, a spiritual world, that does, indeed, exist.[/quote]

I definitely believe that there is something supernatural going on, I just find it very hard to reconcile the common perception of ghosts (souls that have not passed on) with our faith.

Edited March 24, 2009 by HisChildForever

[InHisLove726]

I used to think that, yes, there were ghosts. I loved to watch "Ghost Hunters" and read Ghost stories. But that is changing. I became very skeptical of these things because I feel that "Ghost Hunters" is wrong when they contact the dead. Many here have said that demons can appear as ghosts to confuse us, and I agree. I don't believe in "limbo" or that a soul can be trapped here on earth when the body dies. That goes against what we as Catholics believe, which is that a soul is immediately judged for a foretaste of heaven or hell, until the Final Judgment day. I believe that the only "ghosts" (not demons) that can exist is that their memory is still present on earth. Like they became attached to something. That's not against Catholic belief.

Edited March 24, 2009 by InHisLove726

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='InHisLove726' post='1815584' date='Mar 24 2009, 03:25 PM']I don't believe in "limbo" or that a soul can be trapped here on earth when the body dies. That goes against what we as Catholics believe, which is that a soul is immediately judged for a foretaste of heaven or hell, until the Final Judgment day.[/quote]

Exactly. I mean, a soul of a loved one who visits us in a dream is NOT what I would consider a ghost. The commonly held belief is that a ghost is the soul of a deceased human being who is stuck on earth, unable to move to the afterlife. That does contradict what we believe.

[Nihil Obstat]

I can't say this for sure, but I'm under the impression that limbo is an acceptable belief as a Catholic.
I believe it's been mentioned before.

[InHisLove726]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1815693' date='Mar 24 2009, 05:59 PM']I can't say this for sure, but I'm under the impression that limbo is an acceptable belief as a Catholic.
I believe it's been mentioned before.[/quote]

I think you are getting "limbo" confused with Purgatory. Purgatory is acceptable and necessary, but "limbo" is not.

The idea of "in limbo" was used to describe unbaptized infants, fetuses or embryos who still had the stain of original sin, but who had not sinned themselves. It was mostly used in the 20th century. Since then, it's been put to rest:

[url="http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18025/limbo"]http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18025/limbo[/url]

[InHisLove726]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1815622' date='Mar 24 2009, 03:20 PM']Exactly. I mean, a soul of a loved one who visits us in a dream is NOT what I would consider a ghost. The commonly held belief is that a ghost is the soul of a deceased human being who is stuck on earth, unable to move to the afterlife. That does contradict what we believe.[/quote]

Agreed.

[Resurrexi]

Limbo is a perfectly acceptable belief. In fact, depending on which limbo one means, is actually a dogmatic teaching of the Church.


In the Creed we confess that Christ "descended into hell." By this we mean that he descended into the abode of the dead where the just from before Christ's ascension dwelt. The term for this place is Limbo of the Fathers. This doctrine is not merely found in the Apostles' Creed, but also in the Athanasian Creed and in the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, among other documents of the Magisterium. For a better understanding of this dogma, I would recommend the following paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

'632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487'


Another abode referred to by Limbo is the Limbo of the Infants, which is a place of natural happiness to which, it is widely believed, that unbaptized children go after death. This has never been condemned or abandoned by the Church, in spite of the findings of the International Theological Commission, which is a body which does not have magisterial authority.

[InHisLove726]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1815825' date='Mar 24 2009, 08:56 PM']This has never been condemned or abandoned by the Church, in spite of the findings of the International Theological Commission, which is a body which does not have magisterial authority.[/quote]

How is that possible if they are part of the Vatican? Their web address is part of the Vatican webpage!

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_index.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...h/cti_index.htm[/url]

Plus, the 41-page document was printed by the USCCB.

Edited March 25, 2009 by InHisLove726

[Resurrexi]

There are many things on the Vatican website that aren't authoritative teachings of the Church, including news updates from the Vatican news agency. The USCCB can print all sorts of things, including a Catechism for Adults with an error in it which had to be corrected by the Holy See.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Resurrexi

[HisChildForever]

I believe the limbo that was initially discussed was not the ACTUAL spiritual place of Limbo, but rather a term used to describe a between-like state.

[rkwright]

[quote name='InHisLove726' post='1815831' date='Mar 24 2009, 09:05 PM']How is that possible if they are part of the Vatican? Their web address is part of the Vatican webpage!

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_index.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...h/cti_index.htm[/url]

Plus, the 41-page document was printed by the USCCB.[/quote]

I would trust the actual document itself.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...infants_en.html[/url]

Having briefly skimmed it, you may be incorrect in saying limbo has been abandoned, or is no longer acceptable - It is still an open question.
[quote]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”.[/quote]
[quote]79. It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. She knows and celebrates the glory of the Holy Innocents, but the destiny of the generality of infants who die without Baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed. What we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation, as must now be explained.[/quote]
[quote]102. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.[/quote]


STM you should read the document, its pretty good so far...

Edited March 25, 2009 by rkwright

[Resurrexi]

I've looked at the document. It's not a horrible evaluation of limbo. However, when the document came out, news headlines were reading "Catholic Church abandons teaching of limbo" and other such things. The document is what it is, a document from a theological commission. Not a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Resurrexi