Whats Behind Curtain Number 3?

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Ah, it seems I was wrong. The church stills teaching the idea of purgatory.

Do Catholics Believe in Purgatory?

But it has stopped teaching the idea of limbo.

Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries | Reuters

I believe in the idea of limbo, but my definition is different than the church's definition. Which brings up the question: was limbo ever an official teaching of the church? If it was, why change it? Can two different popes, each with the ability to issue 'infallible teachings' disagree with each other?
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,598
Reaction score
2,754
Points
108
Which brings up the question: was limbo ever an official teaching of the church?
It was, but not a dogma, it's not an article of faith.

Can two different popes, each with the ability to issue 'infallible teachings' disagree with each other?
No. Most people really have no idea of what constitutes 'infallible'. It's not, as you seem to think, that everything the pope says is regarded as infallible.

I recall on my degree course someone asking how many such 'infallible teachings' have been issued by all the popes through history. The answer is one of those questions open to discussion — theres always context to consider — but the general consensus hovers somewhere around ... four.
 

LincolnSpector

Well-Known Member
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Then it's not God who condemns us, but we who condemn ourselves, even in the face of love.
Sorry, Thomas, but I don't buy it.

If we assume God is an all-powerful creator, then we have to assume that God created us as imperfect mortals, easily confused about what is good and what is evil.

And if God does that, and then punishes us for being evil, then God is evil for treating us that way.

And then God offering an escape hatch which is, when it comes right down to it, a guessing game, makes it all the worse.

To put it another way, I could not love a God who acted like that.
 

A Cup Of Tea

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,311
Reaction score
569
Points
108
Sorry, Thomas, but I don't buy it.

If we assume God is an all-powerful creator, then we have to assume that God created us as imperfect mortals, easily confused about what is good and what is evil.

And if God does that, and then punishes us for being evil, then God is evil for treating us that way.

And then God offering an escape hatch which is, when it comes right down to it, a guessing game, makes it all the worse.

To put it another way, I could not love a God who acted like that.

Keep an open mind, I think you have assumed a number of things about Thomas reasoning, but I will not presume to speak for him.
 

Tadashi

Well-Known Member
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
A Japanese living in America
But then, I really don't believe in an individual life after death. Maybe your soul becomes one with God, like a raindrop landing in the ocean. But when that happens, it ceases to be an individual raindrop.
Kind of surprising that you and I have a strikingly similar idea, even though you call yourself an agnostic, I call myself a believer... Below is what I wrote about the afterlife.
When I had that epiphany, I also realized that "we are all one" because we will all eventually merge into the same supreme spiritual energy (the cosmic conscience as I like to call it), which I also call God in short (because it's just easy that way!).
Imagine each of us as a waterdrop and God as the ocean. After we (waterdrops) get absorbed into the ocean, we are, you and I are, all one and the same, aren't we? So, you'll be part of me, and I'll be part of you. And essentially, you are me and I'm you...

Also, FWIW, I gave Thomas a very hard time in regards to an 'eternal hell', too. :D

Tad
 

Tadashi

Well-Known Member
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
A Japanese living in America
I recall on my degree course someone asking how many such 'infallible teachings' have been issued by all the popes through history. The answer is one of those questions open to discussion — theres always context to consider — but the general consensus hovers somewhere around ... four.
What are those four?

Tad
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,598
Reaction score
2,754
Points
108
What are those four?
This is interesting. I knew Our Lady was one, but as it turns out, the consensus agrees on two dogmatic statements, not four.

Remember the dogma of infallibility was declared in 1870, so you can't really retro-apply that argument back in time.

The two are Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX in 1854, which defines the Immaculate Conception, and Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII in 1950, which defined the Assumption of the Theotokos.

And neither of these two were 'new', but the common faith if the Church since about the 2nd century ... and in both cases the document lists the historical reasoning of the dogma, they were not 'out of the blue' nor were they examples of a pope going 'out on a limb'.

Some people like to make a 'big deal' over papal infallibility, but in my experience it usually turns out they haven't a clue how the dogma is actually defined, and usually their opinion is founded on their own sense of their infallibility!
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,598
Reaction score
2,754
Points
108
If we assume God is an all-powerful creator, then we have to assume that God created us as imperfect mortals, easily confused about what is good and what is evil.
I disagree. That rules 'free will', 'autonomy' and 'self determination' out of the equation.

We are created 'good', but we are not created 'perfect', nor can we be, in a finite world.

There is 'the human margin'.

People talk about the Big Bang, as some event that happened in the distant past, a one-time creation event, and here we are, billions of years latter, living in the afterglow ...

People used to believe in a geocentric cosmos, with earth in the middle, everything revolving around us ...

I would like to propose different theories:
Creation is not a one-off event, and its subsequent fall-out, it's an ongoing moment, a dynamic continuum of rising, becoming, falling away ... never beginning, never ending ...

Man's place is not in the centre of a 3D spherical model, man's place is not 'in here' but 'out there', on the liminal edge of meaning or knowing (the latter not to be confused with a pseudo-gnostic idea of 'the esoteric').

Man's place is the interface between the finite and the Infinite; our vocation is to manage that creative dynamic in its every happening moment.

This does not mean we all have to become wizards or mystics or mages or gnostics ... that's really not it at all. Often, it's actually contrary to what we should be.

We should be caring and compassionate ... everything else, as an old chum of mine used today, is toothpaste.

And we know that. We've known that from Day One. There is no way we can excuse ourselves by saying "I didn't know I was supposed to care" — it's in our nature, it is our nature, Good God, animals do it.

We are free to make decisions. All this 'man is conditioned' is subsequent to that principle fact. If man were not free, we could not be conditioned one way or t'other. And it's not about whether or not we are actually 'free', it's about whether or not we actually 'think'. Nearly everyone thinks they think. They think thinking is natural. They confuse what passes through their minds with thinking.

It ain't. Most people don't think. Thinking is a skill, like any other.

I'm not accusing you of this, I think you're more reasoned than that, but if one pursues many of the 'God's at fault' arguments, they boil down to blaming God for not making me better than I am, they're rather childish 'it's not my fault' kind of complaint.

But then that seems to be human nature, and the sacred scribe knew that very well. The story of the Fall is everybody blaming everyone else, and no-one taking responsibility for themselves.
 

Tadashi

Well-Known Member
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
A Japanese living in America
This is interesting. I knew Our Lady was one, but as it turns out, the consensus agrees on two dogmatic statements, not four.

Remember the dogma of infallibility was declared in 1870, so you can't really retro-apply that argument back in time.

The two are Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX in 1854, which defines the Immaculate Conception, and Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII in 1950, which defined the Assumption of the Theotokos.

And neither of these two were 'new', but the common faith if the Church since about the 2nd century ... and in both cases the document lists the historical reasoning of the dogma, they were not 'out of the blue' nor were they examples of a pope going 'out on a limb'.

Some people like to make a 'big deal' over papal infallibility, but in my experience it usually turns out they haven't a clue how the dogma is actually defined, and usually their opinion is founded on their own sense of their infallibility!

Thank you Thomas, you are my live-wikipedia for theology...
I donated $20 to wikipedia the other day... I should do the same for you...!

Tad
 
Top