Choose style:

Author Topic: Limbo to be abolished?  (Read 19359 times)

littlepaddle

  • Member
  • Posts: 637
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #80 on: October 09, 2006, 07:04:am »
[

[/QUOTE]


At the funeral of John Paul II, Benedict XVI gave Communion in the hand to his longtime friend Roger Schutze, whom he knew to be Protestant. Would a Catholic priest who believed in the Real Presence do that?
[/quote]

 

Supposedly Schutze converted secretly.  True?  I don't know.  But without contrary evidence, I have to give Rome the benefit of the doubt.

 

There's enough screwiness we have evidence for, so I give the benefit of the doubt when possible.

[/QUOTE]

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F016_SchultzConversion.html

Brother Schutz Did Not Convert
from Protestantism




 

Malicious Advertisement



WhatPeopleAreSaying02_Cir_sm.jpg - 24011 Bytes

TIA,

You are the pits! Shame on you, to take pictures out of context for the malicious advertising of your agenda.

An example of your blatant lying: Brother Schultz of Taizé is a convert to Catholicism, and was no longer a Protestant at the time he received communion in your picture [click here].

You disgust me.

     L.B.


burbtn.gif - 43 Bytes



Soft Traditionalism


Dear TIA,

I just read the article on "Brother Roger" in The Remnant and his so called "Conversion" .... Why are they giving this any positive press?

I am sad about it. Do you think that the Traditional movement is going REALLY SOFT? I'm feeling there is something seriously wrong these days.... what is going on? It scares me!

     In Jesus and Mary

     K.H.


burbtn.gif - 43 Bytes



Please, Enlighten Me?


To the Editor,

I am a regular reader of your website and I think it’s excellent. I want you to know that I also follow it for my personal orientation since I think it is the most balanced of the traditionalist websites. We are tired of the self-excommunications and infighting so common among traditionalists and also conservatives. These groups are tearing into each other to the great advantage of our common enemy. Your position of resisting the bad orientation of the religious authorities while remaining inside the visible Catholic Church is, for me, the only reasonable thing to do in these confused times we are living in. I commend you for that.

The purpose of this letter is to ask your opinion on the apology that a certain traditionalist newspaper issued for having criticized Pope Benedict XVI giving Communion to Brother Roger Schutz of Taizé. According to this organ, Brother Schutz had converted, and therefore, his receiving the Eucharist would be all right.

I read the article and the supposed evidence presented by Yves Chiron. Wasn’t he wrong when he affirmed that Schutz converted? Would you be kind enough to enlighten me as to what really happened?

     Thank you,

     In Christ Jesus,

     E.J.


burbtn.gif - 43 Bytes




The Editor responds:


Unfortunately, I cannot begin this answer by greeting Mrs. L.B. as I would like to do, because I could not find any positive point to praise in her short and abrasive e-mail. I simply acknowledge with sympathy the time she took to visit our website and write us her e-mail.

I can thank Mrs. K.H. and Mr. E.J., however, for their confidence and kind words. They are an encouragement for the TIA staff.

I cordially respond to your questions:


Schutz Did Not Convert

1. Regarding the supposed evidence of the conversion of brother Schutz advanced by Mr. Yves Chiron, this was denied straightforwardly by Schutz’ successor as superior of Taizé, brother Aloïs. In an interview with the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, this Protestant minister affirmed precisely the opposite of Mr. Chiron. I translate his words:  
Question (La Croix): “Did Brother Roger formally convert to Catholicism as the historian Yves Chiron just affirmed?

Answer (Brother Aloïs): “No, Brother Roger did not ever formally ‘convert’ to Catholicism. If he would have done so, he would have stated it because he never hid anything about his life. Either in his books, writings, or journal, he set forth everything that he discovered and lived” (La Croix, online, September 5, 2006 – for full text click here).
On September 6, a communiqué in English by the Taizé Community was issued addressing other points of Chiron’s argument:  
“A document of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity in Rome is used to support the thesis of a ‘conversion’ undertaken by Brother Roger, although the text says nothing of the kind. As for the Bishop Emeritus of Autun, Msgr. Raymond Seguy, he has already qualified his words. Rejecting the term ‘conversion,’ he declared to the Agence France Press: ‘I did not say that Brother Schutz abjured Protestantism, but he showed that he subscribed fully to the Catholic faith’” (Taizé website – click here for full text).
The communiqué gives the following reason for the strange affirmation of Bishop Seguy:  
“From a Protestant background, Brother Roger undertook a step that was without precedent since the Reformation: entering progressively into a full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church without a ‘conversion’ that would imply a break with his origins” (ibid).
Then the strong final word comes:  
“Whoever speaks of ‘conversion’ in this respect has not grasped the originality of Brother Roger’s search” (ibid).
So, there is no conversion. Chiron missed the target, as did those who relied on his conclusions.


Theological Ramblings behind this Case

2. How can it be understood that Schutz “fully subscribed to the Catholic faith” without a conversion?

The explanation should not be sought in Catholic doctrine, but in the Progressivist doctrine of Vatican II. Indeed, what directs ecumenical and inter-religious activity in these post-Vatican II decades is the false notion that religions are set in concentric circles. The center of those circles would be the Catholic Church; the next and larger circle would be the “Church of Christ,” which would also encompass Protestant and Schismatics; the third ever broadening circle would be the “Church of God,” which would encompass those already described plus all those who believe in one God: Jews and Muslins; the fourth enlargement is the “Messianic People,” which encompasses all those who believe in any superior power that would have created the universe, such as Buddhists, Hinduists, Animists, and Masons.

The only ones who would remain outside of these concentric circles are materialists such as Communists and Agnostics, but Progressivism has managed to find points of affinity even with them. For example, they found that “the future” which Communists believe in was also a transcendental value that could correspond to the Catholic belief in the second coming of Our Lord.

This is the Progressivist theory of concentric “churches” according to which God would distribute His grace more intensely in the center, but also in the peripheral circles and bring people to salvation in all of them. Therefore, Progressivism considers obsolete the dogma that a person can only be saved inside the Catholic Church, which we believe.

It seems that Schutz had heard something of this and imagined that he was “in full communion” with Catholics. Actually, in his interview to La Croix, Aloïs reports:  
“He [Schutz] often told about how, in his last meeting with John XXIII in 1963, he received from the Pope a spiritual legacy and asked him about the place of Taizé inside the Church. Making circular gestures with his hands, John XXIII answered: ‘The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles - increasingly larger, increasingly larger.’ The Pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé, but brother Roger understood that the Pope wanted to say: ‘You are already inside, simply continue on the same path.’ That is what he did” (La Croix online, ibid).
So, if anyone wants “to grasp” the meaning of Schutz’ words regarding his “full communion” with the Catholic Faith without a conversion, he should understand that according to Progressivism, Protestants are already part of the “Church of Christ,” and therefore do not need to convert.

This is why the Bishops of Autun gave Communion to Schutz and all the members of Taizé group; this is why John Paul II “celebrated the Eucharist” in Taizé; this is why Cardinal Ratzinger gave the Holy Eucharist to the Protestant Roger Schutz, and finally this is why, when Schutz was killed, Benedict XVI affirmed that he had been saved.

I feel sorry for those traditionalists who try to mesh the present day Vatican policy with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, because they do not fit together.

I hope this response can be of some help.

      Cordially,

      A.S. Guimarães


 


QuisUtDeus

  • Guest
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #81 on: October 09, 2006, 07:26:am »

Interesting.

 

There's also this article on the Taize website.  Apparently he had been receiving Catholic Communion since 1972.  And so have all the other members of the Taize community unless they're lying.

 

That's messed up.

 

http://www.taize.fr/en_article3865.html

 

Quote

What exactly happened in 1972, in the chapel of the bishop’s house in Autun?

-  In 1972, the then Bishop of Autun, Mgr Armand Le Bourgeois, simply gave him communion for the first time, without requiring any other profession of faith from him besides the Creed recited during the Eucharist, and which is held in common by all Christians. Several witnesses were present, three of my brothers, a couple who are friends of ours; they can attest to this.

Why at that precise moment?

-  That date was chosen because Brother Roger was preparing to receive the life commitment of the first Catholic brother of the community and it was unthinkable not to receive communion at the same Eucharistic table. Several months later, Mgr Le Bourgeois came to Taizé and, in the same way, gave communion to all the brothers of the community.


OLRansom

  • Guest
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #82 on: October 09, 2006, 11:51:am »
Quote from: jovan66102
I suggest you check the link Kephapaulos posted immediately above. St Thomas distinguishes between the two.


If you will kindly read what I posted, you will see that I distinguish between the Limbo of the Fathers and that of the Infants (although I believe both were contained in essentially the same region of Hell).

I realize the two are distinguishable, but that does not change the essential theological quandry one is in if Limbo is denied - which is what the thread is about (or so I thought).

If one says there is no Limbo, then you must put unbaptized infants in Heaven or the same part of Hell as the damned.  Which is it?

OLRansom

  • Guest
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #83 on: October 09, 2006, 11:56:am »
Quote from: Ancilla_Indigna
But besides that, theologically speaking, we are all born  as creatures of wrath into fallen nature, inherited from Adam.   Our first father is the devil, did not God say so?   We only become children of God upon our holy Baptism.


While this is true, I do not see how it pertains to the present discussion.

Do those who die without having received Sacramental Baptism or the grace thereof (and thus cannot enter Heaven), and have not committed any actual sin, go to burn eternally in the same regions of Hell as the damned or not?

OLRansom

  • Guest
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #84 on: October 09, 2006, 12:00:pm »
Quote from: QuisUtDeus
Quote from: Ancilla_Indigna

Thankfully, our Pope is a man who has evolved (for lack of a better word) theologically speaking.

I think he has as well, plus he has more years of wisdom.  I'm hopeful he'll put both to good use here.



Perhaps like he did when visiting the Synagogue in Germany?  Or the example provided in the post by little paddle?

Do not hold your breath, my friends.  Once a modernist, ...


Kephapaulos

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,786
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #85 on: October 09, 2006, 08:08:pm »

Quote from: OLRansom
Quote from: Ancilla_Indigna
But besides that, theologically speaking, we are all born  as creatures of wrath into fallen nature, inherited from Adam.   Our first father is the devil, did not God say so?   We only become children of God upon our holy Baptism.


While this is true, I do not see how it pertains to the present discussion.

Do those who die without having received Sacramental Baptism or the grace thereof (and thus cannot enter Heaven), and have not committed any actual sin, go to burn eternally in the same regions of Hell as the damned or not?

It depends on each person's merits or demerits when one goes to Heaven or Hell. The Limbo of Children is in Gehenna and is at the same time at its upper fringe, for such souls who go there do not have sanctifying grace, which is common to all who are in Hell, i.e. Gehenna. The children in the place of limbo though have not merited or demerited though at all either way. They could not merit since they had no sanctifying grace at all and no use of reason, and they could not demerit either because they did not commit any actual sin, venial or mortal, since they did not have the use of reason. Since they did not incur any punishment due to sin, they would instead simply have a loss of the Beatific Vision, but they would have a natural happiness as if they were on earth without any temptations to sin due to their not demeriting and despite their having still original sin on their souls, i.e. a lack of sanctifying grace. In other words, they would not deserve any punishment for actual sin, but they would only get as far as a natural happiness, not as far as supernatural happiness, which is what God wants us all to have with Him in Heaven. That is one reason why abortion is such a heinous sin, for it deprives many souls of Heaven.

 

EDIT: I think a little research into the nature of what Gehenna (what we know as Hell) is also may help in trying to understand the doctrine of the limbo of children.

LEX SUPREMA SALUS ANIMARUM EST.

REQUIESCANT IN PACE ANIMAE IUSTORUM.

QuisUtDeus

  • Guest
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #86 on: October 09, 2006, 08:32:pm »

Quote from: OLRansom

Perhaps like he did when visiting the Synagogue in Germany? Or the example provided in the post by little paddle?

Do not hold your breath, my friends. Once a modernist, ...

Those are reasons to pray for him out of love for him and the Throne of Peter.  I certainly wouldn't do those things, but he is the Pope God has given us, therefore we need to support him in anything lawful.

 

When he does something screwy, I go read good literature and fire off a bunch more prayers for him and anyone he may have scandalized.

 

If God can convert St. Paul and St. Augustine, surely He can fix any kind of nutty ideas a Pope may have.

 

When he was head of the CDF, from what I saw, he tried to be honest about things.  When bishops were claiming SSPX chapel go-ers were excommunicated automatically, he stated clearly that they were not.  He could have lied like those bishops did, but he chose to state the truth based on sound theological arguments.

 

So, His Holiness certainly has it in him to be honest.  I think he may just need some clarity on some of these things, and prayers for him may be able to provide that.

 

If not, then we keep fighting and praying.  God never said it would be easy or that every Pope would be perfect.


jovan66102

  • La foi Catholique d'abord! La mort à l'Islam!
  • Gold Fish
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15,233
  • Gender: Male
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #87 on: October 10, 2006, 12:27:am »
Quote from: OLRansom
Quote from: jovan66102
I suggest you check the link Kephapaulos posted immediately above. St Thomas distinguishes between the two.


If you will kindly read what I posted, you will see that I distinguish between the Limbo of the Fathers and that of the Infants (although I believe both were contained in essentially the same region of Hell).

I realize the two are distinguishable, but that does not change the essential theological quandry one is in if Limbo is denied - which is what the thread is about (or so I thought).

If one says there is no Limbo, then you must put unbaptized infants in Heaven or the same part of Hell as the damned. Which is it?
 
Unfortunately, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the historic argument never included heaven. It was between those who, taking the plain words of Scripture (enshrined in the Roman Catechism-- "infants, unless baptized, cannot enter heaven") as their guide, believed that unbaptised children suffered the pains of the fires of hell and those who thought a mericiful God would make other arrangements.
 
If an attempt is made to "abolish limbo" and state that unbaptised children go to heaven, this cannot be done without doing violence to the Divine and Catholic Faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!

Deum timete, regem honorificate.

Vincentius

  • Guest
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #88 on: October 10, 2006, 10:31:am »
Limbo gets a reprieve
The Pope takes a sabbatical awaiting his decision to declare Limbo as never having  been a Catholic doctrine and thus the non-necessity to abolish it.  Limbo simply never existed.  But why does His Holiness require a whole year to think about it?  He is not sure.  Imagine the whole section on Baptism in the CCC will have to be excised and rewritten!   Particularly sticking out like a sore thumb is this section:

Quote
VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM    

1257
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59[Cf. John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptiz
e them.60  [Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 [Cf. Mk 16:16.] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism.


Of course the Holy Ghost will not allow such declaration (that there is no Limbo) to be infallibly proclaimed from the Chair.

~Vincent
__________________________________________________________________

Pope decision on 'limbo' delayed for a year

From Richard Owen in Rome

The medieval Roman Catholic concept of “limbo” will remain in place for at least a year after Pope Benedict XVI failed to mention it in his homily at Mass today.
 
A draft document drawn up for the Pope’s approval declaring that limbo was “no longer essential or even necessary” and could be “abandoned without causing problems of faith” has not been finalised. It will not be presented to the pontiff until 2007.
 
The Pope was expected to embrace the findings when marking the end of a Vatican conference of international theologians on the subject, but he let the occasion pass.
 
Catholics regard limbo as the home in the afterlife of the souls of unbaptised children.
 
The Pope has himself long argued that limbo was only a “theological hypothesis” and should be dropped. There was no explanation of the need for further discussion.

Quote
What was probably meant by the Pope was that "we simply don't know.  End of discussion."

Monsignor Forte said the Vatican wanted to “eliminate the use of images and metaphors which fail to take account of the richness of the message of hope brought by Jesus Christ”. He said the doctrine that baptism was required to remove the stain of original sin remained valid.
 
But limbo was an outdated concept which had never been part of Catholic dogma, and the Church now believed that in the case of unbaptised children “the salvific power of Christ prevails over the power of sin”.
 
Vatican theologians denied suggestions that the proposed change was intended to prevent people in areas with high infant mortality turning to Islam, which holds that the souls of all babies who die - including those stillborn - go to Paradise.


OLRansom

  • Guest
Limbo to be abolished?
« Reply #89 on: October 12, 2006, 04:48:pm »
Quote from: jovan66102
I have pointed out elsewhere, the historic argument never included heaven.


Thank you for the history lesson given elsewhere.

Quote
It was between those who, taking the plain words of Scripture (enshrined in the Roman Catechism-- "infants, unless baptized, cannot enter heaven") as their guide, believed that unbaptised children suffered the pains of the fires of hell and those who thought a mericiful God would make other arrangements.


I take the words of Holy Writ and the Catechism by decree of the Holy Council of Trent to mean exactly what they say, but I also know - through the teaching of Holy Church - that those who have committed no actual sin are not punished in any positive manner (i.e., they are simply unable to enter Heaven and see God in the face).

Quote
If an attempt is made to "abolish limbo" and state that unbaptised children go to heaven, this cannot be done without doing violence to the Divine and Catholic Faith once for all delivered to the saints.


This is true, and that is the whole point.  If you abolish a place where those who cannot see God in the face, but who are not punished for actual sin - which is what Limbo is - then you must put them in one of only two places: Heaven or Hell strictly so called.

Kephapaulus,

I appreciate what you have explained, although I had already understood it when I made my comments.  Thank you all the same.