It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought Him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: So that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. If the faith was once for all delivered as Jude states, then we should also expect there to be someone trying to change it and the duty falls to us to contend earnestly for that original faith."And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. We must decide for ourselves whether God created a faith which was constantly evolving and being changed (either by the Catholic church or any other denominational conference) or was the faith “once for all delivered” (Jude 1:3). In contrast, Paul argued that if anyone (including the apostles) tried to change the Gospel by saying a person must also be circumcised to be saved, well, then that person was to be accursed and their message disregarded (Gal. How can we avoid being confused? When such things happen, shouldn’t we question the original claim that they have inspired, new revelations at all? We are told that what once was believed was not fully accurate, then we are given a new doctrine and then we are told that the first doctrine was actually right and not the newer one. But how does that fit with having a new truth revealed and then unrevealed? Meat was not originally banned on Fridays. I understand the idea of continued revelation-the church was not fully formed and the truth not fully revealed in the first century and so God would reveal new truths as time went on (or so we are told). Now, Catholics can eat whatever they want and still go to heaven.įor Catholics, such changes are business as usual. But one day, the Second Vatican Council decided that was no longer the case. While some of you were still alive (if you were born before 1966), Catholics who ate red meat on Friday’s would go to hell for it. What happened to Limbo is just the latest example of such a thing. And now, suddenly, they don’t know what the truth is while at the same time and in the same stroke of the pen, they are changing the doctrines of salvation. According to them, they not only reveal truth, they can make it. The Pope (and the Catholic Church) claim to be modern day revealers of God’s truths. In Matthew 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet 'with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven' (cf. But to me, it illustrates one of the great flaws of the Catholic church along with any other churches that believe in modern, on-going revelation from God. In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum. He either won’t say, or doesn’t know any more. Now, it’s just suddenly unnecessary and not necessarily true. Again, the Pope isn’t saying the doctrine is right or wrong. You can be a Catholic and not believe in Limbo. Now, no priest has to teach it and no one has to believe it. It’s somewhere in between, which, ironically, means Limbo is in doctrinal limbo.įor all of your life up until just recently, every Catholic had to be taught and had to believe in the doctrine of Limbo. What happened to Limbo? Pope Benedict quietly put the doctrine into a new category. It also, wasn’t in the Bible and now, suddenly, it is no longer a Catholic doctrine. It wasn’t heaven and wasn’t quite as bad as hell. (Remember, this is Catholic teaching rather than biblical teaching.) According to the Roman Catholic Church, when a good non-baptized person (or an innocent, non-baptized infant) died their soul couldn’t go to heaven, and it was distasteful to think of them as going to hell, so a third option became official church doctrine. Actually, it’s the fourth option when one also considers their doctrine of Purgatory. Limbo is a Catholic doctrine about a third possible destination in the afterlife.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |