Do you accept

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 June 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1275537813' post='2123010']
Rexi's gonna eat you.


[/quote]

Lawl!

There is an important distinction to be made, in terms of things like limbo, eating meat on Friday, etc. There is a difference between a discipline and a doctrine. A doctrine is an infallible declaration of the Church in the matters of faith and morals to which a member is bound to give their assent of faith. Whether that is made by the Holy Father in his office ex cathedra, or by a declaration of the Magisterium, those are things which Catholics may not dissent from. However, there are teachings and devotions which are considered to be disciplines, on which there is no definitive teaching, and to which no particular assent of faith is due from the faithful. For example, Friday is recognized as a universal day of penitential observance, but after V2 the observation of abstinence from meat on every Friday was abrogated. However, the observance of penance on that day was not. Does that mean that because the Church required its faithful to abstain from meat on Fridays at one point, and then, at a later date, changed the observance of a penitential discipline, mean that its teachings were wrong? No. It simply means that the Church has recognized that the day of penitential observance may be honored and contemplated in a better way by some people in some manner that doesn't involve consuming meat.

As far as limbo (of infants), the teaching is not defined by the Church. There is neither a declaration requiring someone to believe it nor one disallowing belief. It is simply an undefined concept. While the deposit of faith may never be altered, it is possible for the Church to revise and refine its teaching positions and practice of devotions for the benefit of the faithful. Our Church is built on the rock, founded on an immutable God, but it must continue to grow with the needs of the flock.

Hope that distinction helps clarify things.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Marie-Therese

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='03 June 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1275538900' post='2123025']


As far as limbo (of infants), the teaching is not defined by the Church. There is neither a declaration requiring someone to believe it nor one disallowing belief. It is simply an undefined concept. While the deposit of faith may never be altered, it is possible for the Church to revise and refine its teaching positions and practice of devotions for the benefit of the faithful. Our Church is built on the rock, founded on an immutable God, but it must continue to grow with the needs of the flock.

Hope that distinction helps clarify things.
[/quote]
Phphew it's a relief to read that!!! Nihil almost caused me to have an anxiety attack.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='02 June 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1275528449' post='2122962']
Limbo has been abolished, but this idea was never defined as infallible. [/quote]

Wrong.

You should not trust sensationalist news articles, especially about specialized subjects like Catholic theology.

The document that the media said "abolished limbo" was not an authoritative document of the Magisterium. It was not published in the[i] Acta Apostolicæ Sedis[/i], the publication in which official acts of the Holy See are published (N.B., the [i]Acta Apostolicæ Sedis[/i] can be found on the Vatican [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_en.htm"]website[/url]). In fact the International Theological Commission itself is not an authoritative teaching body, rather it is an advisory commission that carries out theological studies. If a person wants to say that infants' limbo has been "abolished" and is no longer an acceptable theological view or a Catholic to hold, that person had better find an explicit condemnation of infants' limbo by the Magisterium of the Church.

Additionally, if you actually read the study carried out by the International Theological Commission, you would see that the text of the study never describes infants' limbo as an unacceptable opinion for a Catholic to hold, let alone does it abolish it!

Edited June 3, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Vincent Vega]

K.

[Resurrexi]

From the study done by the advisory commission:

"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. [b]It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.[/b]" (International Theological Commission, [i]The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized[/i], my emphasis).

[Laudate_Dominum]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/yoda_star_wars.gif[/IMG]

[Nihil Obstat]

Did I call that or what?

[Winchester]

I think that was more of a nipping, as opposed to actual mastication.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 June 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1275588410' post='2123230']
I think that was more of a nipping, as opposed to actual mastication.
[/quote]

I concur. Puppy bite, maybe. Shark attack with resulting loss of limb? Not quite to that level.

[Winchester]

[img]http://www.amplify-interactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fistbump.jpg[/img]

[JustJump]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='01 June 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1275447939' post='2122555']
[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/idontknow.gif[/img] Dairygirlism!
[/quote]


So I'm rather new to the phorum. I know Dairygirl is a member...why is that statement an -ism of her's and why is that bad? I wasn't following the logic, now I do, that's why I ask questions [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif[/img]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 June 2010 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1275589797' post='2123237']
[img]http://www.amplify-interactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fistbump.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Two by two hands of blue . . .

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='JustJump' date='04 June 2010 - 08:43 AM' timestamp='1275597811' post='2123272']
So I'm rather new to the phorum. I know Dairygirl is a member...why is that statement an -ism of her's and why is that bad? I wasn't following the logic, now I do, that's why I ask questions [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif[/img]
[/quote]

You're not the only one who is confused here, I am most of the time!
Source [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html"]Vatican website[/url]
[quote][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"]But the Church, as mother and teacher, cannot fail to reflect upon the fate of[b] all men,[/b] created in the image of God, and in a more particular way on the fate of the weakest members of the human family and those who are not yet able to use their reason and freedom. [/size][/font]
[/quote]
I like the bold comment for the reason that I was not always a Catholic, in fact only aware of or believing in the existence of God as a child/young person, I might not even have been considered a Christian. Yet Jesus/God has always loved me and been my constant guide and companion. So yes, the Catholic Church has to acknowledge that although it is the corner stone of Christ's mission on earth it is not the only tool that he uses in the salvation of man kind. The church has a responsibility of love and charity to all people. E.G. In the wake of the Asian tsunami it was Muslims who we went to the aid of under the will and obedience and love of God. If we had not, then we would have failed Christ so therefore these people are cherished and loved by God.


I am glad to learn that the Church teaches this:-
[quote][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html"]Limbo of the infants Vatican website[/url]
This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium,[/size][/font][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"] 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 [i][url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM"]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/url][/i] (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,[/size][/font][/quote]
If the Church were to teach infallibly 'the Limbo of the infants' there would be a terrible contradiction. I think that without looking it up I could say that the Church teaches infallibly that God is a loving (unconditionally) fair, considerate, totally intelligent and [b]forgiving[/b] creator. Forgiveness of sin especially to the contrite, innocent and helpless being a core doctrine. Limbo of the infants would put God in an entirely different light which could not possibly be.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Mark of the Cross