This information is ABSOLUTELY incorrect. The idea that baptism is obligatory in order to be admitted to see God - vulgarised, "heaven" - has been refuted by the Catholic Church for decades - I will link appropriate sources as soon as possible (which means when I have proper Internet access). I would be intrigued to know what the source of such news is; they are either entirely ignorant or entirely in bad faith.
The new chat thread - now with bitter arguing
- Thread starter rahvin
- Start date
This information is ABSOLUTELY incorrect. The idea that baptism is obligatory in order to be admitted to see God - vulgarised, "heaven" - has been refuted by the Catholic Church for decades - I will link appropriate sources as soon as possible (which means when I have proper Internet access). I would be intrigued to know what the source of such news is; they are either entirely ignorant or entirely in bad faith.
I read it on one of the main newssites, tagesschau.de and the article sported a quote like "There is now reason to hope that children, who are not baptised may go directly to heaven. Also, the concept of the long debated pre-Hell was abolished"
No prob.@Siren: Yes. Very sorry about the late response.
I was just starting to get worried. Welcome back QRV, Incendiare and whoever else came back.
Okay, here's the official stuff on what LaRocque and others said. The original statement was
While the news item is (from WikiNews):
April 20, 2007
The Vatican has abolished limbo, which, according to the Roman Catholic belief, is a permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, without having committed any personal sins, but without having been freed from original sin, or in some cases abortion.
Pope Benedict XVI, a theologian, showed doubt about the concept of limbo. He cited his concerns about it when he was a cardinal.
"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation," the 41-page document said. "There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptise them)."
Baptism, in the Catholic Church, is a religious act of purification by water. Baptism removes original sin.
"People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian."
The Church has never made limbo an official doctrine but most Catholics believe in it. The Church also concludes that baptism will stay and further states that it has nothing to do with the abolition of limbo.
----
We are not therefore talking of "people who are not baptized" in general, but of infants. And if anything, it is a step that rather than demonstrating that
demonstrates the opposite. For example, here in Italy up to the 1950s people rushed to baptize their children a few hours after birth even if they were not fervent believers - after all, they didn't want their kids to risk limbo. Now, people don't do that anymore in this country; children are baptized a few months after their birth, and most people don't really bother, if they are not tr00 Catholics. But I would not be surprised to discover that people still rushed to baptism in fear of limbo in developing countries; removing said fear will remove the rush and probably will remove a few baptisms as well, which is totally inconsistent with the idea that the Pope made a good marketing move. And let me say that every time that someone tries to interpret the Church's actions through this lens they will be, in all likelihood, wrong, for one of the following two reasons:
1. The Church follows a different logic;
2. It also has a different timeframe of reference, so if it were trying for marketing it would go for stuff that is likely to sell for the next 100 years, not 100 minutes.
Aside from this, let's go back to the original point about unbaptized adults. The idea that those are going to be admitted to see God only from April 20, 2007 on is preposterous; of course God may not care about official doctrine which has no direct mark of Revelation (ie dogma), and He may care about dogma because after all He gave it to people. Which opens the question about the internal (temporal?) dynamics of the personal god, but I'm not resolved on that anyway. Anyway, here's what the Vatican has had to say for years about the unbaptized and heaven:
[From Answers.com]
As stated earlier, the Church recognizes two other forms of baptism [besides the sacrament of baptism by water]: "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire." Baptism of blood refers to unbaptized individuals who are martyred for the Faith, while baptism of desire generally refers to catechumens who die before they can be baptized. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes these two forms:
Also, see the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject here.
While the news item is (from WikiNews):
April 20, 2007
The Vatican has abolished limbo, which, according to the Roman Catholic belief, is a permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, without having committed any personal sins, but without having been freed from original sin, or in some cases abortion.
Pope Benedict XVI, a theologian, showed doubt about the concept of limbo. He cited his concerns about it when he was a cardinal.
"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation," the 41-page document said. "There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptise them)."
Baptism, in the Catholic Church, is a religious act of purification by water. Baptism removes original sin.
"People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian."
The Church has never made limbo an official doctrine but most Catholics believe in it. The Church also concludes that baptism will stay and further states that it has nothing to do with the abolition of limbo.
----
We are not therefore talking of "people who are not baptized" in general, but of infants. And if anything, it is a step that rather than demonstrating that
Danny said:
demonstrates the opposite. For example, here in Italy up to the 1950s people rushed to baptize their children a few hours after birth even if they were not fervent believers - after all, they didn't want their kids to risk limbo. Now, people don't do that anymore in this country; children are baptized a few months after their birth, and most people don't really bother, if they are not tr00 Catholics. But I would not be surprised to discover that people still rushed to baptism in fear of limbo in developing countries; removing said fear will remove the rush and probably will remove a few baptisms as well, which is totally inconsistent with the idea that the Pope made a good marketing move. And let me say that every time that someone tries to interpret the Church's actions through this lens they will be, in all likelihood, wrong, for one of the following two reasons:
1. The Church follows a different logic;
2. It also has a different timeframe of reference, so if it were trying for marketing it would go for stuff that is likely to sell for the next 100 years, not 100 minutes.
Aside from this, let's go back to the original point about unbaptized adults. The idea that those are going to be admitted to see God only from April 20, 2007 on is preposterous; of course God may not care about official doctrine which has no direct mark of Revelation (ie dogma), and He may care about dogma because after all He gave it to people. Which opens the question about the internal (temporal?) dynamics of the personal god, but I'm not resolved on that anyway. Anyway, here's what the Vatican has had to say for years about the unbaptized and heaven:
[From Answers.com]
As stated earlier, the Church recognizes two other forms of baptism [besides the sacrament of baptism by water]: "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire." Baptism of blood refers to unbaptized individuals who are martyred for the Faith, while baptism of desire generally refers to catechumens who die before they can be baptized. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes these two forms:
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (1258)
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1259)
Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience can also be saved without water baptism; they are said to desire it implicitly. (cf. Catechism, 1260). As for unbaptized infants, the Church is unsure of their fate; "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God" (Catechism, 1261).
Also, see the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject here.
marduk1507
Member
Ive just seen the best football match in years. ManU - Ac Milan.. Imo the 3:2 was well deserved, too. What a great collection of great passes, great technical moments and great goals. Rarely a moment of bore.. just 92 minutes of greatness. That's the stuff the Champion's League is made of!
Yes I know, ManU is a richass club, but if it breeds footie like that... Im all for it!
Hail to great football!
Yes yes, I loved it as well.
afz902k
In Currents of Cobalt...
La Rocque
I am that I am
We were to see Flogging Molly tonight but its out doors and its raining like madman
so we will hopefully catch them later.
@ hyena
Yes I know much of what You wrote
this is where I got my idea for my post
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/pope-revises-limbo-for-babies/n20070420124909990003?cid=194
What I was trying to impart was Ben da 16 had finally done something
I've never seen You use so many capital letters plus all the pretty colors
BTW I was raised as a Catholic, my first 12 years of education were
in private Catholic schools, its a wonder I'm not fucked up more than I am after that
maybe someday I'll write how I lost my faith in religion -
so we will hopefully catch them later.
@ hyena
Yes I know much of what You wrote
this is where I got my idea for my post
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/pope-revises-limbo-for-babies/n20070420124909990003?cid=194
What I was trying to impart was Ben da 16 had finally done something
I've never seen You use so many capital letters plus all the pretty colors
BTW I was raised as a Catholic, my first 12 years of education were
in private Catholic schools, its a wonder I'm not fucked up more than I am after that
maybe someday I'll write how I lost my faith in religion -
afz902k
In Currents of Cobalt...
Hehe, here I've heard people using it as a synonym of "emptyness" or "lack of focus", as in : "Hey man, what's up? You seemed to have been in limbo the whole morning", meaning the person in the example was distracted.
But that's probably taking place in other locations, too.
@larocque: the caps came from cutting and pasting articles that were gramatically correct.
edit: just found out that good riddance split up. they're playing three final shows in california at the end of may and then it's curtains.
edit2: TOMORROW IN THE AFTERNOON I'M MEETING JOE STIGLITZ! just got the news on my mobile now. *is delighted*
edit: just found out that good riddance split up. they're playing three final shows in california at the end of may and then it's curtains.
edit2: TOMORROW IN THE AFTERNOON I'M MEETING JOE STIGLITZ! just got the news on my mobile now. *is delighted*
The Grand Wazoo
Saeva Indignatio
Hey!
I haven't been around for quite some time, so I figured this might be a good spot to say hi. So, hi!
How's everyone doing? Amazing to say that everybody is still here, hihi. : )
I haven't been around for quite some time, so I figured this might be a good spot to say hi. So, hi!
How's everyone doing? Amazing to say that everybody is still here, hihi. : )
The Grand Wazoo
Saeva Indignatio
Siren : D
*hug*
Long time no see, eh?
Cannot promise I'll stick around long, but who knows.. I am not keeping up lately, no idea what's going on in the metal world. Just waiting until DT will be in Utrecht again.
*hug*
Long time no see, eh?
Cannot promise I'll stick around long, but who knows.. I am not keeping up lately, no idea what's going on in the metal world. Just waiting until DT will be in Utrecht again.
La Rocque
I am that I am
If I'm not too late ask Joe what he thinks of Wolfowitz giving his squeeze a high paying job at da bank.hyena said:
Maybe he has some thoughts about who is going to pay for Bush's war in Iraq?
As W refused to raise taxes as long as he is the prez???
@The Grand Wazoo, welcome back,
how are things in the Lowlands?
You're late (and I would not have asked anyway, just not polite
).Anyway, if you are content with my opinion instead of his, when I read all the comments on this fact on the New York Times and other American newspapers I could not help thinking that people in the US are slightly insane when it comes to these types of things. Now, you all know I am not anti-American in any way in general, but come on.
Who-cares-who-fucks-whom?
I see these events from the point of view of a woman who is building a respectable career in the very same kind of environment. I cringe at the thought that if I ever had a relationship with one of the bigshots, which is a fascinating perspective out of obvious reasons (these are people who know and have seen a lot, in most cases quite cultured and with enthralling manners, etc), I may be out of a job faster that you can say "condom" through no blame of mine.
I don't know anything about the lady in question, but what if she was a good professional and deserved the pay rise? Come on. All this talk of sexual freedom, and we're still thinking of female professionals in relation to who they sleep with. It's just ludicrous.
I havent followed the american side of the discussion, but over here, the outcry is not because of the fucking part, but because of the raise of salary and raise in a higher position. Im not sure if you will see the immoral side of that, but I do.
i absolutely do not, at least until i see proof that she is NOT a good professional and she did NOT deserve the pay rise out of her own merits. while i concur on the fact that one should not be helped by having a lover in high places, i also think that one should not be harmed by it.
kingcarcas
Member
Similar threads
- Peter Day
- Saxon
