<p>[Pope</a> Benedict XVI Changes Catholic Church’s Stance on Unbaptized Babies and Limbo - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com](<a href=“http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221601/pope_benedict_xvi_changes_catholic.html?cat=7]Pope”>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221601/pope_benedict_xvi_changes_catholic.html?cat=7)</p>
<p>You didn’t read the article closely enough.</p>
<p>The Church has never taught that unbaptized babies certainly go to Heaven (which was not even clear from BB’s post). So “could” as in “able to” is already too strong. There is a possibility that they can reach salvation, not that any actually do.</p>
<p>Furthermore, secular sources tend to muddle up extremely technical Catholic theology. </p>
<p>Consider this source instead: [CATHOLIC</a> ENCYCLOPEDIA: Limbo](<a href=“http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm]CATHOLIC”>CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Limbo)</p>
<p>It is also worth noting that there is a difference between doctrinal teaching that is infallible and its counterpart, fallible teaching. I would suggest researching degrees of fallibility of Church teaching to get a better idea of this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…Of course they never taught that. I’m pretty sure BB’s post meant to say that unbaptized babies don’t go to heaven.
My point in posting that link was that the catholic church used to say that unbaptized babies went to limbo. It’s why they couldn’t be buried in holy ground (ie a catholic cemetery).
Now, the church is saying that there is a “possibility” that they could go to heaven, and that they essentially don’t know.</p>
<p>In other words, they changed their position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said, it’s not that simple. It was never a definitive truth and it was given Papal authority only in the last century. It is not dogmatic, unlike infallible teachings.</p>
<p>It was not even a doctrinal change since limbo was not doctrinal and did not enjoy Scriptural authority. It was never defined in a Church document or council.</p>
<p>In other words, it was common teaching, but it was NOT a Church doctrine. The “Catholic Church” did not say that unbaptized babies went to limbo, Catholics who speculated theologically did.</p>
<p>Therefore, at no point was anyone actually compelled to accept the principle of limbo since it was never an official teaching.</p>
<p>More information: [Limbo</a> - Original Catholic Encyclopedia](<a href=“http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Limbo]Limbo”>http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Limbo)</p>
<p>Seriously, it is not worth arguing about this. Catholicism is so technical that it is almost impossible to talk about it unless you’re completely on top of it. I really, really suggest looking up this stuff in enormous detail before posting.</p>
<p>Two more points – </p>
<p>1) This entire discussion is irrelevant to the absolutism of the Church, or any entity or philosophy (e.g. transcendentalism). If someone claims, “I believe A today in a morally absolute fashion, but yesterday I believed not A in a morally absolute fashion,” they are still an absolutist, albeit one whose moral views (but not the way in which they apply) have changed. This is not to say that the Church has changed or not changed views, merely that that question is not even relevant.</p>
<p>2) The “views” of the Church are not all in the same category. Some are matters of faith and morals. Other are disciplinary. For example, as similar as they may seem, priestly celibacy and reservation of ordination to males are completely different in nature. The first is disciplinary, and changing that practice tomorrow doesn’t alter any of the Church’s beliefs. Male ordination, however, is an infallible teaching that as such can never change, and is a matter of faith and morals. There’s also the issue of requirement of submission of mind and will, which only applies to certain doctrines and not others. Then, there are beliefs that are never codified and therefore never actually held, e.g. limbo.</p>
<p>In other words, this will become a total mess of minutiae, but I’m all for it if you are. Just be aware that if you are wrong on any count, I will destroy you (and expect nothing less in return).</p>
<p>i am practicing it so as to avoid crotch illnesses</p>
<p>266 virgins and counting</p>
<p>I’m not embarrassing myself. The Catholic church changed all those things I listed.</p>
<p>I grew up Catholic and had to go to church on Sunday. Saturday didn’t count. Now it does. Change.</p>
<p>I learned the Lord’s prayer and Apostle’s Creed and more in Latin because that is the way they were said at mass. They are no longer said that way. Change.</p>
<p>I was an altar boy. We were not allowed to touch the host and neither were any of the people taking communion. Now they can. Change.</p>
<p>I was taught by nuns that unbaptised babies would not go directly to heaven. Now they do. Change.</p>
<p>The embarrassment is yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good Christian attitude.</p>
<p>I think that the Pope should release a latin rap album. Something like “Papin’: Straight Outta da Vatican”.</p>
<p>Hmm… indeed.</p>
<p>
I’d rather be a virgin than an idiot. Only 48 people have posted in this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it did not. Let me shoot them down one-by-one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Saturday” does not count. There is still Daily Mass on Saturday. Saturday VIGIL Mass counts because the liturgical “day” starts at sunset, or something to that effect. So for the purposes of the Mass, they’re still all on Sunday. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again false. Latin is said at every single Mass using the Extraordinary Form (or the Tridentine Rite, identical terminology). Pope Benedict has relaxed the requirements for celebrating the EF and has even encouraged its use. Furthermore, the Ordinary Form (or Novus Ordo) Masses are NOT necessarily in English. They are able to be celebrated in Latin. They are also able to be celebrated in the vernacular. You can even celebrate some parts (whichever ones you want) in Latin and some in vernacular, which many parishes do. The “change” is that you have that option, not that the Mass has changed from Latin to vernacular. Nowhere is it required to celebrate the Mass in vernacular.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not what you posted. You posted that the reception of the Eucharist went from the tongue to the hand. That is not the case. Again, the people still have the choice. The change you listed before was wrong. This reformulation thereof is correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No change. Read my posts. That was never official Church teaching.</p>
<p>Any more? You make it too easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why does it seem that I’m the only one with points that haven’t been annihilated by the opposition?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fo’ sho’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the parish I grew up in, even a wedding mass at 4PM on Saturday counts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we agree this was a change. Good</p>
<p>Regarding Latin, you also agree there was a change to some extent.</p>
<p>I’ll give you the baptism one.</p>
<p>Yeah I got more!</p>
<p>So again, with your absolutist position, how do you deal with these changes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s still considered a Vigil Mass, not a Saturday Mass. Saturday Masses by definition do not count as Sunday Masses; they are Daily Masses. Using your anecdotal evidence is not convincing when all that matters is codified doctrine here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065166267-post265.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065166267-post265.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What matters is it is a change. Saturday isn’t Sunday. Never has been never will be.</p>
<p>I read your link before. This is not about the absolutism of the Church. This is about your statement “I am an absolutist, not a relativist.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Liturgically, “Saturday” Masses are on Sunday. It’s like you claiming arbitrarily that noon is the new midnight. That’s fine, but that doesn’t change the fact that all Masses happen on Sunday in the Catholic framework, which is all that matters in terms of changes in Catholicism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you know exactly how I feel about the Church, which is also an absolutist entity. The post referred to both.</p>
<p>So, liturgically speaking, the change allowing Saturday mass to equal Sunday mass is OK with you?</p>
<p>It cannot be, because the change you are speaking of does not exist.</p>
<p>Saturday Mass = Saturday Mass
Vigil Mass = Mass on Saturday evening = Mass on Sunday because Sat. evening counts as Sunday
Sunday Mass = Sunday Mass</p>
<p>I cannot be okay or not okay with something that is nonextant.</p>
<p>The mass in on Saturday, not Sunday. that makes it Saturday mass. Look at your church mass schedule - the mass is listed on Saturday not Sunday. I’m not sure when this was changed but there was no Vigil mass. Adding a Vigil mass is a change. Are you OK with the addition of this Vigil mass?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a Sunday Mass. You really need to look up how the Masses work. There are six Daily Mass days a week – Monday through Saturday. Saturday evening, the Vigil Mass, is liturgically on Sunday (old Judaic tradition of beginning of the day…).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Weekends
5:00 pm Saturday Vigil
8:00 am, 9:30 am & 12:00 pm Sunday </p>
<p>Hello! What’s that there? Oh, yes, Saturday VIGIL. That inclusion is necessary. Some parishes even omit Saturday and just write “Vigil” because that is all they need – the Vigil is a Sunday Mass, NOT a Saturday Mass. It is simply “on” culture’s definition of Saturday. Note that if we randomly decided that Sunday begins Saturday evening (which liturgically it does anyway), this wouldn’t be an issue at all. You’re arguing semantics and failing at it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There has “always” been an Easter Vigil Mass, so there is certainly a precedent.</p>
<p>It’s a non-issue. It’s asking me if I’m okay with adding an extra Mass on Sunday. The answer is yes. It doesn’t matter whether it’s “Saturday” evening or Sunday morning or Sunday afternoon. It’s still fine.</p>
<p>For someone who isn’t actually Catholic, you sure are die-hard about defending their confusing beliefs.</p>
<p>That basement must sure be lonely.</p>