It is now official, Limbo is no more.

Asiaprod

The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years

Babies who die before being baptised will no longer be trapped in limbo following a decision by the Pope to abolish the concept from Roman Catholic teaching.
The decision was taken after Benedict XVI was presented with Vatican studies that said there were "serious" grounds that such souls could go to heaven, rather than exist between heaven and hell as they have done for almost 800 years.

The 41-page report by the Vatican's Theological Commission, which was compiled following a three-year study, said the concept was an "unduly restrictive view of salvation". However, it added that baptism was the only way to remove the stain of original sin - which according to the Catholic faith all are born with - and urged parents to continue to baptise their children.

"There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for the little ones," the report says.

"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered... 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." The decision marks a gradual and protracted softening of the Church's view on those who had not been baptised.

In the fifth century, St Augustine concluded that infants who died without baptism were consigned to hell. In the 14th century, the poet Dante described limbo as the "first circle of hell" in The Divine Comedy, where such souls were not punished but grieved for their separation from God. Later, theologians surmised that the "limbo of infants" was a state where they were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of. The Pope approved the document, titled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, in January after it was presented to him by Cardinal William Levada, the president of the Theological Commission.

The decision was announced at the weekend and posted on the Catholic News Service website.

Father Paul McPartlan, a British priest and a member of the commission, said: "We cannot say we know with certainty what will happen to unbaptised children but we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation."

LordSutch

Thats very interesting, seeing as I am a Protestant I had no idea what 'Limbo' was, other than a dance ..................

bonkey

The Pope : There are grounds for "prayerful hope" that infants do not end up in Limbo.

Unsourced article : The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years

Asiaprod : The pope has made it official that Limbo is no more.

Asiaprod

bonkey wrote:

The Pope : There are grounds for "prayerful hope" that infants do not end up in Limbo.

Unsourced article : The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years

Asiaprod : The pope has made it official that Limbo is no more.

I'm sorry, could you simplify all this for me, I don't follow it. The source is
The BBC and is also available on CNN, Daily Telegraph and Irish Independent.

bonkey

Asiaprod wrote:

I'm sorry, could you simplify all this for me, I don't follow it.

I took the comment that the Pope made, the headline of what the article you posted was, and your title thread.

All three say something different.

The article headline you quoted is inaccurate in that Pope hasn't ended anything...he has said there are ground to hope that the previously held position may be incorrect.

You then summarised this as the Pope making it official that Limbo "is no more". He most certainly didn't.

Asiaprod

bonkey wrote:

You then summarised this as the Pope making it official that Limbo "is no more". He most certainly didn't.

Thank you for pointing that out, it was completely unintentional I can assure you. I wrote that in a hurry.

ISAW

Asiaprod wrote:

Thank you for pointing that out, it was completely unintentional I can assure you. I wrote that in a hurry.

I think we have been over this ground before. AFAIK Limbo was never dogma! It was a position taken up on questioning whether non christians went to hell?
And 800 years ago isnt even half of the history of Christianity!

Anyway what is an non christian?

I am again reminded of that wonderful series of books (no not the bible) by CS Lewis about Narnia. In one of them (the last one I think - yes it is) Aslan gets to speak to a Calorman . the Calormenes are basically similar to Arabs. Narnians look to Aslan (who is the SON of the Emperor over the Sea) buy Calormenes look to Tash. Anyway there is a door leading to Aslans country and all the people of the world are called to it. Aslan stands before it. All the people and animals ( narnian animals can talk) file past Aslan. Some find it difficult to look in his face but do so. Even some "bad" charachters (who changed!) from earlier books. Some refuse to look at him and move into his shadow and are never seen again. They look back trrough the door and eventually the world is flooded by the oceans and father time reaches up and quenches the sun. Then aslan closes and locks the door on the frozen dark world.

Now where did I hear similar stories before? Anyway, just before that a Calorman captain asked to be thrown through the door. The door was a door into a shed which the group outside thousht coantained "tashlan" the false god created by a (non believing) Calorman general to subjugate Narnians. As it happens Tash did exist and ended up taking the general. The Captain however was brought up worshipping Tash and was a decent man. He refused to accept the false Tashlan and said he wanted to meet Tash as he served Tash.

My point is this:
When Aslan meets the Captain he tells him that Tash is the opposite of Aslan but that the Captain did good deeds which are abhorrant to Tash. Therefore (paraphrasing) what is good I take unto myself even if done in Tash name and what os abhorrant to me Tash takes onto himself even iof done in my name.

Basically aslan took on the innocent children and those who were misinformed or misguided but of pure heart. So if Christ came to save all mankind how could he ignore children who never heard of Christ?

InFront

Do many Christians believe in Limbo and original sin?

I remember when the present pope came to power it was said of him that he was very committed to preserving the traditions of the catholic church as opposed to a policy of revisionism/ relativism, but this is a significant/ common belief isn't it? Or maybe not?
My knowledge of it would be quite poor, but even I have heard about original sin. I thought it might be a pretty big significant aspect of the religion to revise, so I was surprised to read this article.

PDN

InFront wrote:

Do many Christians believe in Limbo and original sin?

I remember when the present pope came to power it was said of him that he was very committed to preserving the traditions of the catholic church as opposed to a policy of revisionism/ relativism, but this is a significant/ common belief isn't it? Or maybe not?
My knowledge of it would be quite poor, but even I have heard about original sin. I thought it might be a pretty big significant aspect of the religion to revise, so I was surprised to read this article.

Most Christians do believe in original sin. As far as I understand it the Catholic Church still does believe in original sin.

Most Christians believe that every child is born with an inherited sinful nature. Every child learns how to lie, for example, without anyone teaching them. Evangelical Christians believe that the child reaches an age of accountability, when they can be held responsible for their own actions. Then they become morally responsible for the sinful acts they have committed. It is necessary, after this point, for the child/young person to either accept Christ by faith (and be saved) or reject Christ (and be lost). Children who die before that point go straight to heaven because a just God would never condemn a child for rejecting a Gospel they were too young to understand. Most Christians would apply the same reasoning to someone with a severe mental handicap.

Roman Catholics also believe in original sin, but have traditionally taught that even a child is corrupted by their inherited sinful nature and therefore unable to enter a holy heaven. The proposed answer is baptism, by which the stain of original sin is washed away. (I noticed that when Bertie Ahern spoke at Charles Haughey's funeral, he stated his belief in Haughey's salvation, not on account of anything good or bad he ever did, but because of his baptism as a baby). Of course, in this belief system, you are left with the problem of what happens to unbaptised babies. Hence limbo was invented. Actually, in its day, limbo was probably intended as a kindly thing - a step above believing that unbaptised babies went to hell. Today everybody has got a lot nicer and heaven is now possibly open for unbaptised babies (and even for Protestants) so limbo is no longer needed.

bonkey

PDN wrote:

Actually, in its day, limbo was probably intended as a kindly thing - a step above believing that unbaptised babies went to hell.

As an adult, once I started thinking about the concept of Limbo, it struck me as a "necessary" invention in its day to explain why heathens needed to be converted and baptised, but why the unbaptised children of Christians wouldn't suffer the same fate the heathens were assigned to. It had to leave in place the impetus for baptism, whilst removing the universal condemnation of the unbaptised by making some form of exception.

It also raised some interesting questions. If an unbaptised baby goes to anywhere other than hell (be it limbo or heaven) then at what point does that change, and they simply become "unbaptised" and no longer subject to this "special case"? Their first conscious sin? The first sin they knowingly commit?

After all, surely God doesn't make exceptions between the unbaptised children who will later be baptised and those who will not....but some/many Christians hold that among adults, baptism is essential. So logically, a threshold is at some point reached and crossed. I just don't know what that threshold would be.

ISAW wrote:

Basically aslan took on the innocent children and those who were misinformed or misguided but of pure heart. So if Christ came to save all mankind how could he ignore children who never heard of Christ?

Similarly, though, it suggests that Christ would judge people on their actions, rather than on their beliefs. This is, I believe, the view that Lewis had, but is not one which is universally shared amongst Christians....as numerous threads have already indicated.

PDN

bonkey wrote:

It also raised some interesting questions. If an unbaptised baby goes to anywhere other than hell (be it limbo or heaven) then at what point does that change, and they simply become "unbaptised" and no longer subject to this "special case"? Their first conscious sin? The first sin they knowingly commit?

After all, surely God doesn't make exceptions between the unbaptised children who will later be baptised and those who will not....but some/many Christians hold that among adults, baptism is essential. So logically, a threshold is at some point reached and crossed. I just don't know what that threshold would be.

Your first paragraph would refer solely to Roman Catholic beliefs, so I think it would be better for a Catholic to discuss that with you.

Your second paragraph would appear to refer to those non-Catholics, like myself, who reject infant baptism. (There are certain churches, eg Presbyterians, who baptise children without claiming that the ceremony has any ability to confer salvation). Let me stress that very few who practice believer's baptism (more accurate than 'adult' since someone can be a conscious believer in Christ but still technically be a child) would see baptism as essential for salvation. We would believe baptism to be "essential" in that it is obedience to a command of Christ, but if someone neglects to be baptised then no evangelical Christian I know would therefore think they are not saved.

There are a few sects or denominations that believe in baptismal regeneration, but these are usually viewed as fringe movements that also differ from most Christians in, for example, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity.

Puteq

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

robindch

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

In this article, the BBC quotes a Times article which implied that the pope chose to make this change of dogma because he was aware that people in Africa and Asia, where infant mortality rates are high, would choose islam over christianity in order to guarantee religious security of their dead children. Discarding the idea of Limbo would therefore remove islam's competitive advantage and place the two religions on an equal footing in the religious marketplace which is something that would probably interest the church.

philologos

But Catholicism isn't exclusively Christianity. The other Christian churches are perfectly able to compete with Islam as it is.

robindch

Yes, and I'd assume that the pope probably knew that. I would imagine that he'd want to compete effectively with other christian variations too, rather than lose potential converts?

Stabshauptmann

Theres something very strange to me about the obvious need of atheists to convert people [sic].

I understand why people with certain religious beliefs feel it their duty to spread the good news, but why do atheists feel so strongly about proving they're right?

kelly1

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

Hello Puteq, I have to take issue with your statement.

The concept of Limbo was never dogmatically defined and is merely a theory (which the Pope hasn't ruled out BTW). i.e. the Church isn't changing its teaching.

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I'm not a theologian, but I belive the concept of Limbo was invented in light of the above verse and in view of God's mercy. The fate of unbaptized infant is a mystery but we have hope in God's mercy.

God bless,
Noel.

mossieh

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

Amen brother/sister!

Sangre

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Theres something very strange to me about the obvious need of atheists to convert people [sic].

I understand why people with certain religious beliefs feel it their duty to spread the good news, but why do atheists feel so strongly about proving they're right?

Misery loves company....

axer

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

I believe it was the marketing department that got him to say it.

But seriously, the catholic church have always been making it up as they go along.

The Pope: how can we make more money?
Ted (The Pope's accountant): how about we change the rules and don't let priests marry so that we can take everything they own when they die.
The Pope: Brilliant Ted!
Ted: Also Mr. Pope, how about we don't let any women become priests. T'would save having to pay for maternity leave.
The Pope: I know that rule is not in the rulebook but sure what the heck. Lets do it!

kelly1

axer wrote:

But seriously, the catholic church have always been making it up as they go along.

Axer, would you care to back up you statement? Otherwise, stop stirring up trouble.

Noel.

axer

kelly1 wrote:

Axer, would you care to back up you statement? Otherwise, stop stirring up trouble.

Noel.

The catholic church made up the rule about no women priests. The catholic church made up the rule about priests cannot marry. I don't have to back those up, do I? Ergo it seems to me that the catholic church seem to make up whatever rules suit themselves. So it doesn't surprise me if they got rid of limbo for unbaptised babies just to get more people to join the religion.

BrianCalgary

axer wrote:

I believe it was the marketing department that got him to say it.

But seriously, the catholic church have always been making it up as they go along.

The Pope: how can we make more money?
Ted (The Pope's accountant): how about we change the rules and don't let priests marry so that we can take everything they own when they die.
The Pope: Brilliant Ted!
Ted: Also Mr. Pope, how about we don't let any women become priests. T'would save having to pay for maternity leave.
The Pope: I know that rule is not in the rulebook but sure what the heck. Lets do it!

The flaw in your argument is as follows:

Firstly there wouldn't be any need for maternity leave and secondly hiring women priests would be a heck of a lot cheaper than the men.

On a seriuos note though, if it's the Catholic church you're bothered with, fair enough, stay away and go find God in another denomination.

axer

BrianCalgary wrote:

Firstly there wouldn't be any need for maternity leave and secondly hiring women priests would be a heck of a lot cheaper than the men.

There would be if they were allowed to marry!

Does anyone know is it part of the catholic churches belief that there is or is not limbo? i.e. is you are a catholic are you supposed to believe in it or not?

J C

bonkey wrote:

There are grounds for "prayerful hope" that infants do not end up in Limbo.

Does this mean that Limbo is now ITSELF, in a 'state of Limbo' within Roman Catholocism????:D ????

mossieh

J C wrote:

Does this mean that Limbo is now ITSELF, in a 'state of Limbo' within Roman Catholocism????:D ????

I don't think so, it just means that what the Catholic church said was the truth last week is not the truth this week. Because they say so. And why not?

kelly1

axer wrote:

Does anyone know is it part of the catholic churches belief that there is or is not limbo? i.e. is you are a catholic are you supposed to believe in it or not?

Limbo is a theory, it's not a doctrine. So you can choose to believe in Limbo or not.

Noel.

kelly1

mossieh wrote:

I don't think so, it just means that what the Catholic church said was the truth last week is not the truth this week. Because they say so. And why not?

Any chance you could make an intelligent comment instead of this puerile attempt at humour?

mossieh

kelly1 wrote:

Any chance you could make an intelligent comment instead of this puerile attempt at humour?

Maybe, depends on whether or not I find the subject funny. I find this funny.

Does the Church have an official position on limbo-dancing and if so, is it doctrine or theory?

UU

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Theres something very strange to me about the obvious need of atheists to convert people [sic].

I understand why people with certain religious beliefs feel it their duty to spread the good news, but why do atheists feel so strongly about proving they're right?

I'm atheist and I don't around "converting" people. Actually most Atheists keep to themselves. I mean, we're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever we want and have opinions about whatever we want but I'd never try to force my beliefs on anyone because I wouldn't like somebody to do it to me. If somebody wants to have a debate about religion and stuff with me, I'm all for that. I'll treat the deabte the same as any other debate because religion deserves no special position IMO. I'm not a narrow-minded person not am I dogmatic.

Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw the Enlightened Church of Atheism calling to your door and asking for your membership for the sake of salvation of the world by the non-God? :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

UU wrote:

Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw the Enlightened Church of Atheism calling to your door and asking for your membership for the sake of salvation of the world by the non-God? :rolleyes:

About half the posters in this thread tbh.

UU

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

About half the posters in this thread tbh.

I know there are a lot of atheists here but I don't post here to try to "convert" Christians to atheism. That's just dumb!!! :mad: I post here because I actually find Christianity to be a very interesting subject to learn about. It's history, practises, beliefs, discussions, organisations are very fascinating to know about. It's obvious that I don't believe in it but that doesn't stop me learning about it. Just as if you're Christian, there's nothing wrong with learning about other faiths like Islam or Buddhism. In fact, I think religion is a very important subject which has shaped society in many ways. I also think that religious followers should learn about different religions and atheism/agnosticism, etc., philosophy, theology... Likewise, people who don't follow religion should do so too.

But modest debating is also equally important. It is very important for christians here to debate issues with non-christians and each other. I also think there should be a certain amount of respect, dignity, tolerance, kindness and empathy shown towards each other when discussing certain things even if two people have very different opinions. Free speech is important but that doesn't include hate speech and discrimination, etc.

I hope there will be many more thought-provoking, informative and respectful discussions here in years to come.

Peace!

JoeB-

I believe that the Catholics make it up as they go along... I personnally find it abhorrent that an organisation is allowed to exert influence over people by claiming to represent God, when it's quite clear that if they did represent god then their teachings wouldn't change like the weather... many women in Ireland were devastated when they had still born children... the church refused to bury these children in consecrated grounds... the church never stated then that limbo wasn't a definite place, that it was only an uncertain human interpretation...

My belief and my opinion is that anyone who chooses to believe any of this nonsense is only deluding themselves...

People say that you should take it or leave it... I don't see it as being that simple... mainly because the Catholics 'volunteered' to get involved in education of the young, I'm a cynic and I believe this is because the young's opinions can be formed in a way that suits the catholics, also the methods of teaching faith by fear and intimidation are disgraceful... to say nothing of promoting and facilitating massive and widespread child abuse.

Is there anything the church could do that would be so heinous as to cause followers to abandon the church? Do people never consider that maybe the devil is holding undue influence over these child abusers and that maybe the correct course of action for true believers would be to leave the church?

kelly1

JoeBallantine wrote:

I believe that the Catholics make it up as they go along... I personnally find it abhorrent that an organisation is allowed to exert influence over people by claiming to represent God, when it's quite clear that if they did represent god then their teachings wouldn't change like the weather.

Joe, in fact one remarkable thing about the Church is that it's teachings haven't changed at all! Yes, there have been new articles of dogma introduced but these haven't contradicted earlier doctrines. I don't know why babies were burined in un-consecrated ground but it was most likely a decision of an Irish bishop. You need to distinguish between traditions and doctrine.

Noel.

death1234567

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Theres something very strange to me about the obvious need of atheists to convert people [sic].

I understand why people with certain religious beliefs feel it their duty to spread the good news, but why do atheists feel so strongly about proving they're right?

If a child thinks 2+2=5 would you not try to correct them?

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

one remarkable thing about the Church is that it's teachings haven't changed at all!

False. What catholics are required by their institutional church to believe has changed enormously over the years. Some things that spring to mind are its rules regarding to abortion - up to around 1870, it used to permit abortion up to, AFAIR, three months; now it doesn't. Its rules regarding clerical marriage have changed too; it used to be allowed, now it's not (unless you're a member of the Uniate Church in Ukraine which owes its allegiance to the pope and in which case catholic priests are still allowed to marry; not a lot of catholics know that). As well as these two, there are its rules regarding women, sex with children, homosexuals, slavery, contraception, creation, the flatness of the earth, the rotation of the earth about the sun which have all changed too. Within catholic doctrine alone, recently, the assumption was only declared an inerrant item of dogma around 40 or so years ago, and Limbo was discarded last year.

So, you can see that there have been changes over the years in what the church wants people to believe. There are plenty more -- this is just a headline sample off the top of my head.

kelly1

robindch wrote:

False. What catholics are required by their institutional church to believe has changed enormously over the years. Some things that spring to mind are its rules regarding to abortion - up to around 1870, it used to permit abortion up to, AFAIR, three months; now it doesn't.

Do you have a source for this?

robindch wrote:

Its rules regarding clerical marriage have changed too; it used to be allowed, now it's not (unless you're a member of the Uniate Church in Ukraine which owes its allegiance to the pope and in which case catholic priests are still allowed to marry; not a lot of catholics know that).

That's a rule, not an article of faith.

robindch wrote:

As well as these two, there are its rules regarding women, sex with children, homosexuals, slavery, contraception, creation, the flatness of the earth, the rotation of the earth about the sun which have all changed too.

Sex with children??? What's that all about? What has changed re teachings on homosexuality? That's news to me. There was never any teaching/dogma on how the world was created except that it was created by God 'ex nihilo'.

robindch wrote:

Within catholic doctrine alone, recently, the assumption was only declared an inerrant item of dogma around 40 or so years ago, and Limbo was discarded last year.

It doesn't matter when an article of dogma is declared. And limbo was only ever a theory proposed by Thomas Aquinas (afaik).


I challenge you to give me one example of an article of DOGMA that has changed. Traditions/rules don't count!

Noel.

liamdubh

axer wrote:

I believe it was the marketing department that got him to say it.

I think that's correct. The RC Church is facing big pressure in areas of high-infant mortality from Islam and other Christian churches. Makes sense that they would, quietly, put an end to discussing limbo (is it doctrine?).

kelly1

liamdubh wrote:

I think that's correct. The RC Church is facing big pressure in areas of high-infant mortality from Islam and other Christian churches. Makes sense that they would, quietly, put an end to discussing limbo (is it doctrine?).

No Limbo, isn't doctrine and never was.

liamdubh

kelly1 wrote:

I challenge you to give me one example of an article of DOGMA that has changed. Traditions/rules don't count!

Why not? Why is something that was a "sin" now not a sin? Do those who have gone to hell for these sins get to heaven?

What about the dogma that said only those who are members of the Church can go to heaven? Jews and others can't. That was dogma. Has that not changed?

Serious questions. I'm interested to know what the official position is.

kelly1

liamdubh wrote:

Why not? Why is something that was a "sin" now not a sin? Do those who have gone to hell for these sins get to heaven?

I don't see the connection between rules (e.g. priestly celibacy) and teachings about morality (e.g. that contraception is intrinsically evil).

What about the dogma that said only those who are members of the Church can go to heaven? Jews and others can't. That was dogma. Has that not changed?

It still is dogma that "Outside the Church is no salvation". This means that all salvation comes through the Church from Christ. The uncertainty lies in who is actually a member of the Church i.e. is a member of the body of Christ. The Church allows for the possibility that people may be saved through baptism by desire and that those who die in ignorance of the
gospel may also be saved. Christian baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ so non-catholics Christians are implicitly members of the Church through baptism. It's a bit of a tricky area though because there are some aspects of God's "policy" that haven't been fully revealed. We have to put our trust in God's mercy and goodness.

PDN

kelly1 wrote:

It still is dogma that "Outside the Church is no salvation". This means that all salvation comes through the Church from Christ. The uncertainty lies in who is actually a member of the Church i.e. is a member of the body of Christ. The Church allows for the possibility that people may be saved through baptism by desire and that those who die in ignorance of the
gospel may also be saved. Christian baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ so non-catholics Christians are implicitly members of the Church through baptism. It's a bit of a tricky area though because there are some aspects of God's "policy" that haven't been fully revealed. We have to put our trust in God's mercy and goodness.

Noel, I appreciate that you are sincere and hold firmly to your beliefs as a Catholic. I think your view of Baptism will thereby send the good folks of the Salvation Army and the Quakers to hell as they don't practice baptism at all.

Also, the following quotes would make it pretty clear to me that the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church has, in the past, clearly stated that non-Catholics such as myself have no hope of salvation.

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (1302): "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: "It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to it's fellowship."

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved"

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood"

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856: "There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church."

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: "But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. "

It seems that all these Popes clearly taught that salvation was impossible for anyone outside the Roman Catholic Church. Papal bull and dogma. Now I believe that we are viewed as "separated brethren", which I guess indicates some kind of change?

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

(abortion) Do you have a source for this?

It's rather difficult to find a catholic-controlled source for this information -- the best I can do is this page which gives some of the history of the church's changing attitude to abortion. There's a more complete page here while the Catholic Encylopedia (usually an interesting, if heavily biased, resource) has this page which doesn't mention the changes at all.

To summarize: for most of its existence, the church took Aristotle's view that boys were "ensouled" at 40 days from conception, and girls at 80 and abortions before those dates were held to be the equivalent of killing vegetables. In the 17th century, the 40 and 80 day limits were changed to a single simultaneous "ensoulment" at, I believe, 40 days. Then in the 19th century, the separate process of "ensoulment" was dropped and from then, foetuses were held to be fully human, attracting a full set of human rights, from the date of conception. The Vatican still holds to this view.

kelly1 wrote:

I challenge you to give me one example of an article of DOGMA that has changed. Traditions/rules don't count!

Erm, you claimed that the church has never changed its "teachings", not dogma!

WRT dogma, there was a time in the distant past before catholic dogma existed and people used to believe whatever they were told by their local bishop, which resulted in wide variations of belief and ended up producing the Arian heresy, amongst other things.. The various church councils were held to assert orthodoxy on a many issues. The biggest of these was at Nicene where they tried to pin down the dogma concerning the relationship of god to Jesus to the holy ghost, then changed it subtly over the years (filioque et al). Does that answer your challenge?

Puteq

kelly1 wrote:

We have to put our trust in God's mercy and goodness.

Er ... if you're relying on this yer well screwed. If theres one thing the bible teaches us, its that God kicks ass and doesnt take prisoners. OK there are examples of his mercy and kindness, but there are just as many examples portraying him as an evil malicious monster.

skeptic griggsy

The Pope can make up new stuff as he has only guesses :rolleyes: anyway to go by! Gee, I am destined for Hell as I have no desire for God. :cool:

kelly1

robindch wrote:

WRT dogma, there was a time in the distant past before catholic dogma existed and people used to believe whatever they were told by their local bishop, which resulted in wide variations of belief and ended up producing the Arian heresy, amongst other things.. The various church councils were held to assert orthodoxy on a many issues. The biggest of these was at Nicene where they tried to pin down the dogma concerning the relationship of god to Jesus to the holy ghost, then changed it subtly over the years (filioque et al). Does that answer your challenge?

Hello again. I'm not sure that it does.

Would you have a reference for the changes you refer to? Was there a dogmatic contradiction introduced at any point? There's nothing wrong with clarifying a teaching as long as no contradiction of a prior article of dogma or of sacred scripture results.

Regards,
Noel.

robindch

Depends on what you mean by a "dogmatic contradiction" and since you've not defined what you mean by "dogma" and all the other terms and how they differ from each other, it's difficult to know exactly what you're looking for.

Certainly, the greater part of the set of beliefs held and propagated by the various churches which have called themselves "christian" over the years has changed vastly, as you'd expect, and is continuing to change. I'm sure I recommended it somewhere around here recently, but do check out William Dalrymple's book 'From The Holy Mountain' -- it's a brilliantly written travelogue around some of the strange avenues that christianity took, or almost took, at one point or another during the last 2k years, concentrating on the bizarre variations of christianity of the near Middle East, in the crescent from Mount Athos to Egypt.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to the set of beliefs dictated through the Nicene creed, then obviously that hasn't changed (much), since the text hasn't changed (much). But then again, if you'd been born an Orthodox, you'd might well find yourself saying that you had the right version of the creed and the catholics were the heretics. Or you could have been a Maronite from the Bekaa valley in Lebanon, and thought that the eastern and western churches were *both* corrupt.

If you look at the other points agreed at Nicene and later (there were quite a few, and the initial version of the text of the Nicene creed was just one of them; you should be able to find them all on google) you'll see that just about every one of these other terms has faded into the background, except for the text of the creed itself.

The reason for that, according to people like me, is that, like a lot of religious text, the Nicene creed simply says nothing of any political or economic importance, and people can agree to it without much trouble. In other words, its power as political glue outweighs the common religious tendency for such declarations to act as political gunpowder. Of course, even the Nicene creed's few words and ideas were central to the political, then religious, schism between the churches of the eastern and the western Roman Empire, but it's simplicity and brevity remains one of the chief reasons for its social popularity.

BTW, I hasten to add that the church is not the most libertarian organization when it comes to revealing, or making known, details of its own history. A lot of the above isn't generally known for the obvious reason that it casts the church in something less than a divine light.

Anyhow, I think you need to define your terms a bit more accurately. The changes and contradictions are there -- all you have to do is look (or ask ) for them.

PDN

robindch wrote:

I'm sure I recommended it somewhere around here recently, but do check out William Dalrymple's book 'From The Holy Mountain' -- it's a brilliantly written travelogue around some of the strange avenues that christianity took, or almost took, at one point or another during the last 2k years, concentrating on the bizarre variations of christianity of the near Middle East, in the crescent from Mount Athos to Egypt.

Sounds interesting. Do you know if this is the same William Dalrymple who wrote White Mughals, the Last Mughal, and The Age of Kali?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Sounds interesting. Do you know if this is the same William Dalrymple who wrote White Mughals, the Last Mughal, and The Age of Kali?

It is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

It is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks. I just bid for a copy on ebay.