Redmike started a thread in Debates with this post which soon want into off-topic bigoted territory (Hello, Debates!). But I actually am somewhat interested in the theological implications:
So, it seems that the pope is about to ditch the concept of limbo - that place where unbaptised babies and folk born before JC end up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5406552.stm
It seems that this has been part of catholicism for centuries, to account for the fact that the poor baby hadn't sinned, so couldn't go to hell, but hadn't been baptised, so they hadn't enough air miles to get to heaven either.
So, what else is up for grabs? What other tenets of catholicism are open for review?
What happens to all those babies who're currently in limbo?
What do people think of the suggestion that this is just a cynical bidding war with islam for 3rd world converts, because in islam newborns go straight to paradise if they die, so islam is a better bet in areas of high infant mortality.
Originally posted by Fettzilla I debate your spelling is poor, foetus foetus
"The word fetus originates from the Latin fetus meaning "offspring," "act of bearing young," or "is or was filled with young". Foetus is an English variation on this rather than a Latin or Greek word, but has been in use since at least 1594 according to the OED, which describes fetus as etymologically preferable but almost unknown in actual use. In general, the medical community only permits the spelling fetus (preferred by the British Medical Journal, for example), but the spelling foetus persists in general use, especially in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc."
Originally posted by no1marauder What happens to all those babies who're currently in limbo?
If the concept is ditched, I assume that would mean limbo supposedly never existed, so there wouldn't be any babies in it either. Or would ditching the concept mean that the pope would persuade God to discontinue it?
Originally posted by Nordlys If the concept is ditched, I assume that would mean limbo supposedly never existed, so there wouldn't be any babies in it either. Or would ditching the concept mean that the pope would persuade God to discontinue it?
That was Redmike's question not mine. Limbo actually isn't official RCC doctrine, but an ex cathedra declaration from the Pope that limbo doesn't exist would mean that Catholics wouldn't be allowed to believe in it. That would be a rather major change as many Catholics (like LH) like limbo as it allows them to still believe in original sin and the necessity of baptism while not making their God look bad by condemning miscarried and aborted fetuses to damnation.
Originally posted by no1marauder That was Redmike's question not mine. Limbo actually isn't official RCC doctrine, but an ex cathedra declaration from the Pope that limbo doesn't exist would mean that Catholics wouldn't be allowed to believe in it. That would be a rather major change as many Catholics (like LH) like limbo as it allows them to still believe in original sin and the necess ...[text shortened]... ile not making their God look bad by condemning miscarried and aborted fetuses to damnation.
"...while not making their God look bad by condemning miscarried and aborted fetuses to damnation."
Say what? The Christian God doesn't do that. Even if the concept of limbo was...umm...aborted (giggle)... it's doubtful that any pope would say that the likewise "fetuses" would be damned to hell (as they were never given a chance to be born [and therefore never given a chance to be baptized], it is likely that their "souls" would go to heaven).
Originally posted by lioyank "...while not making their God look bad by condemning miscarried and aborted fetuses to damnation."
Say what? The Christian God doesn't do that. Even if the concept of limbo was...umm...aborted (giggle)... it's doubtful that any pope would say that the likewise "fetuses" would be damned to hell (as they were never given a chance to be born [and therefore ...[text shortened]... ver given a chance to be baptized], it is likely that their "souls" would go to heaven).
You obviously don't understand RCC doctrine.
EDIT: And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.
Originally posted by no1marauder You obviously don't understand RCC doctrine.
EDIT: And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
No Baptism, no salvation.
"No Baptism, no salvation"
How can you baptize someone when they aren't born yet? The only cases I know of were when lay people performed emergency baptisms ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit"😉 when they knew someone was going to have an abortion. And even if they didn't do so, I highly doubt that the RCC would cause themselves further damage by declaring that all those souls who were never born (and never baptized) were damned to hell.
Originally posted by lioyank Sidenote: Every time I use quotes next to a parenthesis, I get a smiley. Anyone know why that is and how I can prevent it?
I add a space before the parenthesis ("like this" ). It doesn't look pretty, but it's better than the smiley.
Originally posted by no1marauder You obviously don't understand RCC doctrine.
EDIT: And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
No Baptism, no salvation.n
Rubbish. There's no official RCC doctrine about unbaptized children.
Limbo
07 Oct '06 17:42
Back to Top