The Catholic Church has apparently decided that "Limbo" doesn't exist, partly because its so complex to teach. Did they really just change their belief system because they didn't like it? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130...qLtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-- VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Limbo -- the place where the Catholic Church teaches that babies go if they die before being baptized -- may have its days numbered. According to Italian media reports on Tuesday, an international theological commission will advise Pope Benedict to eliminate the teaching about limbo from the Catholic catechism. The Catholic Church teaches that babies who die before they can be baptized go to limbo, whose name comes from the Latin for "border" or "edge," because they deserve neither heaven nor hell. Last October, seven months before he died, Pope John Paul asked the commission to come up with "a more coherent and enlightened way" of describing the fate of such innocents. It was then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected Pope in April. It is now headed by his successor at the Vatican's doctrinal department, Archbishop William Levada, an American from San Francisco. The commission, which has been meeting behind closed doors, may make its recommendation soon. In his Divine Comedy, Dante passes limbo on his way into hell and writes: "Great grief seized on my own heart when this I heard, because some people of much worthiness I knew, who in limbo were suspended."
If such a place existed, why would anyone keep a baby from heaven? I always thought this limbo idea was a little wack anyway.
This is just a rumor at this point; and I'm sure the reason behind any change is going to be more than a dislike for the old understanding.
People listen attentively I mean about future calamity I used to think the idea was obsolete Until I heard the old man stamping his feet This is a place where eternally Fire is applied to the body Teeth are extruded and bones are ground And baked into cakes which are passed around In the afterlife You could be headed for the serious strife Now you make the scene all day But tomorrow there'll be Hell to pay Beauty, talent, fame, money, refinement, job skill and brain And all the things you try to hide Will be revealed on the other side. Now the D and A and the M and the N and the A and the T and the I-O-N Lose your face Lose your name And get fitted for a suit of flames.
While in some instances I agree with your viewpoint about Buddhism, I think a blanket statement like this is a show of disrespect to people who hold certain faiths. I think we should promote discussion and tolerance instead of reactionary attitudes. That said, why are ideas of the afterlife stupid? What ideas were you referring to? I know you believe in oneness and the karmic universe, but is that just as stupid or less stupid than the afterlife? After all, hundreds of millions of people over the years can't all be stupid.. or can they?
You must have thought you were still in Hangout. It happens to the best of us. This is the D&D; reactionary attitudes are all we do here.
Sure they can! People have always believed what they wanted to believe, especially in the absense of contrary evidence. Although, I wouldn't say stupid... simply in need of a psychological crutch and/or a need to explain mysterious things.
Where does it say that they changed it just because they didn't like it?Theological issues, like philosophical ones, are hard and complex. It makes sense that they can change over time with new thinking. It sounds like Pope John Paul wanted something more coherent.
If it's a Church teaching, is it not supposed to be divined by God? How does the Church - and not even the Pope, but theologians - change whether there is a Limbo or not?
We agree. Signed, People who believe the Earth is flat Proponents of a Geocentric Universe Slave owners Lakers Fans
I have a question to any Catholics who may want to answer. Or not Where does this concept come from. It doesn't appear to be scriptural. I'm reminded of Jesus looking at the man on the cross next to him and saying, "surely today you will be with me in the Kingdom of Heaven." no waiting. step right up. the thief on the cross wasn't baptized. i've just never understood this sort of teaching because i've never understood the source.
That's somewhat of an oversimplification. Catholic Theology grows and develops from first precepts, i.e. Christ says such and such about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Winding and gnashing of teeth; how de we interpret what can be considered grey area? And so doctrines are developed overtime; they might seem rough at first; like the original doctrine on limbo; and then grow through councils and prudent thinking into deeper doctrines...
Catholic teaching is not solely based on what the Bible says. A lot of teaching is also derived from the theological tradition and reasoning of the Church. Here are a couple of things from Wikipedia: "Many Christian churches consider the written Scriptures (the Bible) to contain infallible truth, but Catholic Christians believe that infallible truth is also contained in the oral traditions passed down through the Church ... Catholic theology places the authoritative interpretation of scripture in the hands of the judgment of the Church rather than the private judgment of the individual." Also: "A faithful Catholic is allowed to disagree with the Pope on certain issues that do not have anything to do with Magisterial teaching, or when magisterial teaching is vague. As long as it is an informed and thought-out argument, debate is encouraged in the Catholic Church." I'm thinking that Pope John Paul found this teaching to vague.
This stuff is kind of dense theological teaching, but you can find the scriptural basis for the idea of limbo here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Dude; I don't know if I'd go to far with that Wikipedia quote; I'd like to see in the Cathecism where it encourages Catholics to go against the pope. That quote you put up there is just loaded.
