Which TC members are going to Hell?

He's a * amongst men, won't have anymore of you're blaspheming slander

 

Naw, Limbo was for unbaptised babies and there was no getting out of there.

Imagine the anguish this caused grieving parents.
John Paul 11 abolished it, but cannot recall there ever being an explanation given as to what became of the souls in Limbo.

Just shows what a crock of * the whole lot is.

 

WHere west Brits mate not irish

 

Aye that's the one.

 

They stayed in limbo for centuries, we're ressurrected as teenagers and made to work for free at McDonalds, KFC and Dunkin Donuts.

 

dont believe in either,but would rather go to * than heaven,too many rules and regulations in heaven it sounds like some sort of dictatorship not my type of place to be honest.

 

Bet you can't go about giving mandatory haircuts in heaven.

 

* it when I die I want to go to * cus I'm a piece of * it ain't hard to fucken tell

 

are we not living in * now,surely when we die there's only one place to go ,,slan

 

Pope Saint John Paul II did not "abolish it." With all due respect, before you go around making pronouncements on Catholic teaching then I strongly urge you to actually research these matters.

The Limbo of the Infants has never been a Magisterial teaching of the Church. It is a theological hypothesis that was proposed by the scholastics of the Middle Ages. What we do know is that without baptism you absolutely and utterly cannot attain unto the beatific vision (Heaven). These are the words of Our Lord Himself, and the constant teaching of the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church and the Doctors and saints of the Church.

We know what happens at baptism and we know what can't happen without it. What we do not know is what happens definitely without it. This is where theological speculation plays a part. The scholastic doctrine of the Limbo of the Infants was a way of reconciling the necessity of baptism with *'s providence and mercy for unbaptised infants that die prior to baptism or in the womb. Saint Augustine and some other early Church Fathers maintained that the souls of unbaptised infants suffered the torments of *, even though they were not guilty of Actual Sin (Actual Sins are the sins we commit of our own free will).

But Saint Thomas Aquinas, and his fellow scholastics (Duns Scotus, Bonaventure, etc.), maintained that that would be unjust because the torments of * are reserved only for those that commit sins of their own free will. Original Sin is not an Actual Sin, it is being born in a state where we lack sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is the participation in the Divine life of *, it is *'s dwelling within us. And it is always a free gift. We have no right to it. By Adam's Sin, that is, Original Sin, we are deprived of that gift. It is a punishment that is given to all of the human race. But the punishment does not involve adding on undue hardship, rather it is depriving us of a free gift.

Think of it like this. Your father offended your neighbour. Your neighbour walks past you in the street one day. His response is to ignore you, or punch you. He chooses to ignore you and you cannot claim that it is unjust because you have no right to his attention anyway. *, of course, loves us, and He has instituted a means of reconciling us to His grace, which was accomplished by His own very entrance into Creation to suffer and die for us on the Holy Cross.

There are three places in creation. Heaven, earth (the material universe), and *. When you die your soul goes to either heaven or *. Purgatory is considered a part of *. The Limbo of the Fathers, which is where the souls of the Patriarchs like Abraham, David and Saint Joseph went to and where Christ descended to for three days after His Death, is also a part of *. The scholastics formulated the Limbo of the Infants as a place where unbaptised infants exist in a natural state of happiness. Having neither the torments of *, or the joys of Heaven.

It has never been a magisterial teaching, but it remains the most popular response to the question amongst the saints and doctors of the Church. It's unpopular today, but so is half of that which the Church teaches, so it's no skin off our nose. It is a theological opinion, the one I hold in the face of that of Saint Augustine. But it's wholly more coherent and superior to the alternatives that outright reject the necessity of baptism, etc.

 

What happened to big Les you get him banned again bible John?

 

Excuse me?

 

Sorry, it was Benedict, small point.
Did it result in the reinterment of babies who were refused burial in consecrated ground?
Was an apology issued?

Why was it a sin to eat meat on Friday and then it wasn't?

Why did women have to be "churched" after giving birth?

And now homosexuality mightn't be as bad as once decreed.

Craggy Island makes as much sense as Rome.

 

Livin' life without fear...

 

No, it wasn't, because no such thing happened. You're talking out of your *.

No, and nor should they.

Of course not. There is absolutely no reason to apologise. Unbaptised babies do not go to heaven.

The sin was not in eating meat, but in failing to observe the precept of the Church. Friday is still a day of abstinence, the Church simply allows other forms of mortification, but abstaining from meat is still the universal norm. So if you wish to eat meat on Fridays you must still supplement it with another act of penance. Personally I maintain the traditional abstaining from meat, and it was chosen because of Our Lord's death on the Holy Cross on a Friday.

They still should be. The Churching of Women is an opportunity for the woman to give thanks to * for the gift of her child, receive a blessing from the priest to help her heal after the streneous task of child birth, to obtain the graces necessary to be a good mother.

What's wrong with that?

A single bishop drafted a report and released it to the public - to the utter outrage of the majority of bishops attending the Synod who have already outright rebelled against the goings-on at the Synod. Nothing on the Church's teaching on homosexual acts will change.

This provide some coherency yourself.

 

North. You can cut and paste the ramblings of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine ad nauseam
and discuss how many angels would fit on the point of a pin, but the fact remains that the Catholic religion, as we knew it has lost is relevance for the people.

For most part it was a smoke and mirrors job, impressing the multitude with pomp and ceremony and the use of Latin, a language beyond the understanding of the majority. I give credit for the ability to hijack the pagan festivals and substituting them with Christmas, Easter, Holy Souls etc.
How it reconciles morality with the Papacy of Renaissance Italy, with the debauchery of the Medici, Sforza, Orsini, Colonna families et al. baffles me. Not much different from the Corleones and Sopranos.
Papal infallibility my *.

In Ireland, Druidism was still practiced in areas up to the 1850's and there are court reports of the burning of witches as late as the 1890's. Catholicism didn't really take hold until the 1850's with the Devotional Revolution. It was all over in less than 150 years, it's demise hastened by rampant paedophelia and its control justified by the quoting of Canon Law.

This hypocrisy was not what Jesus preached.