Revising Limbo
Petrea Mitchell
isolated paragraph on the front of the _Wall Street Journal_:
"Vatician theologians are reviewing the doctrinal underpinnings
for limbo, where babies denied heaven because they died unbaptized
are said to go."
It got me thinking of a bit in _The Story of the Stone_, as our narrator
is journeying through the Chinese hells and comes to the one for people
who died without proper burial rituals:
"The Ninth Hell alone is unjust. None but a theologian could love
it. How can I forget a little girl I saw weeping beside the road,
damned for all eternity because she slipped and fell into a
stream? It is my sincere belief that priests could deal a death
blow to atheism by destroying the Ninth Hell, and the proper
petitions should be submitted to Heaven at once."
Which is perfectly reasonable for the narrator to say because the Chinese
heaven is run by a bureaucracy which, like the earthly Chinese one of the
time, could be petitioned to make changes or address grievances if you
knew who to write to. But the Christian unseen world is supposed to be
unchanging, and I'm curious what the Christians here make of the news from
the Vatican. It's my understanding that there is no Biblical mention of
Limbo, but is it taught in Sunday school anyway? Is there a practice of
distinguishing it as a common belief but not derived from Scripture?
--
/
Petrea Mitchell <|> <|> <pr...@m5p.com> <mit...@osm.com>
"Assembly language: where men are men and bits are scared." ---Cybermuffin
"Then I ran out of talent." ---Christian Fittipaldi
Mike Van Pelt
Petrea Mitchell <pr...@parkstreet.m5p.com> wrote:
>By far the most interesting story I read in a paper yesterday was this
>isolated paragraph on the front of the _Wall Street Journal_:
>
> "Vatician theologians are reviewing the doctrinal underpinnings
> for limbo, where babies denied heaven because they died unbaptized
> are said to go."
>But the Christian unseen world is supposed to be unchanging,
>and I'm curious what the Christians here make of the news from
>the Vatican. It's my understanding that there is no Biblical
>mention of Limbo, but is it taught in Sunday school anyway? Is
>there a practice of distinguishing it as a common belief but
>not derived from Scripture?
Limbo is a Catholic doctrine. I'm not a Catholic (Baptists
don't do the Limbo) but my understanding is that it was sort
of a patch to the doctrine that baptism was required for
salvation*, because sending innocent babies to Hell didn't
fit anyone's concept of a just God. All denominations have
traditions which aren't actually in the Bible, whether they
admit it or not. Catholics are more open about that fact
than some other groups.
I don't believe Limbo was ever part of an "Ex Cathedra"
pronouncement, either, so it wouldn't be out of the question
for the Catholic Church to announce that after several hundred
years of due consideration, they've concluded that they were
mistaken on that point.
(God is unchanging , but I don't think there's anything in the
Bible saying the unseen world is necessarily unchanging.)
* Protestants generally bring up the repentant thief on the
cross at this point, but I think Catholicism has always
recognized "baptism of desire", where someone wanted and
intended to be baptised but was prevented.
--
Tagon: "Where's your sense of adventure?" | Mike Van Pelt
Kevyn: "It died under mysterious circumstances. | mvp at calweb.com
My sense of self-preservation found the body, | KE6BVH
but assures me it has an airtight alibi." (schlockmercenary.com)
Tim McDaniel
Mike Van Pelt <m...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>Limbo is a Catholic doctrine. I'm not a Catholic (Baptists
>don't do the Limbo) but my understanding is that it was sort
>of a patch to the doctrine that baptism was required for
>salvation*
>* Protestants generally bring up the repentant thief on the
>cross at this point, but I think Catholicism has always
>recognized "baptism of desire", where someone wanted and
>intended to be baptised but was prevented.
And "baptism of blood", where someone dies for the Faith.
E.g., the babies that the NT says Herod slaughtered in his attempt to
get Jesus -- the Holy Innocents, I think?
--
"Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Keith F. Lynch
> saying the unseen world is necessarily unchanging.)
Perhaps not, but I believe it is Catholic doctrine that the unseen
world is timeless and unchanging. But of course the Catholic church
can say and has said it was mistaken about some aspect of the unseen
world. They aren't likely to announce that Limbo is closing next
Tuesday after lunch, but they might announce that it never existed
in the first place.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Robert Sneddon
<tm...@panix.com> writes
>And "baptism of blood", where someone dies for the Faith.
>E.g., the babies that the NT says Herod slaughtered in his attempt to
>get Jesus -- the Holy Innocents, I think?
Mary Gentle's ASH: A Secret History mentions a siege where the soldiers
holding the city drove the inhabitants out, to disrupt the besiegers and
preserve their own stores of food. The besiegers trapped the city folk
in the moat but as a kindness took the children from the families and
baptised them before returning them to their families to starve to death
with them. That was nice of them, wasn't it?
--
My gmail account is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Marty Helgesen
> In article <11p3jb3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Petrea Mitchell <pr...@parkstreet.m5p.com> wrote:
> >By far the most interesting story I read in a paper yesterday was this
> >isolated paragraph on the front of the _Wall Street Journal_:
> >
> > "Vatician theologians are reviewing the doctrinal underpinnings
> > for limbo, where babies denied heaven because they died unbaptized
> > are said to go."
> ...
> >But the Christian unseen world is supposed to be unchanging,
> >and I'm curious what the Christians here make of the news from
> >the Vatican. It's my understanding that there is no Biblical
> >mention of Limbo, but is it taught in Sunday school anyway? Is
> >there a practice of distinguishing it as a common belief but
> >not derived from Scripture?
>
> Limbo is a Catholic doctrine. I'm not a Catholic (Baptists
> don't do the Limbo) but my understanding is that it was sort
> of a patch to the doctrine that baptism was required for
> salvation*, because sending innocent babies to Hell didn't
> fit anyone's concept of a just God. All denominations have
> traditions which aren't actually in the Bible, whether they
> admit it or not. Catholics are more open about that fact
> than some other groups.
Yes, although I would say that they don't recognize it rather than
that they don't admit it. I think that most, maybe all, "Bible Only"
Christians really think that they believe only what the Bible teaches.
> I don't believe Limbo was ever part of an "Ex Cathedra"
> pronouncement, either, so it wouldn't be out of the question
> for the Catholic Church to announce that after several hundred
> years of due consideration, they've concluded that they were
> mistaken on that point.
That's right. The article on Limbo in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
written before World War I, ends, "Thus the Council of Florence,
however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of
perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and
this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the
prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the
standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long
ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's
justice and other attributes."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Note the words, "prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo."
That's several steps removed from a defined doctrine.
I would say it's amazing how much nonsense is being written about
this announcement if I weren't used to that kind of nonsense in the
media. To give just one example, The Guardian, a well-known and,
presumably, reputable British publication has a story by John Hooper,
presumably its Rome correspondent, with the headline "Babies to be
freed from limbo" It begins, "It is an odd place. The inhabitants
include Plato, Moses, Abraham and lots of babies. Now after more than
700 years of shadowy existence, limbo faces closure."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1653832,00.html
As he should know -- and if he does know it he's deliberately dis-
torting the facts in a vain attempt at being clever -- the Church did
not claim it could send people to Limbo or free them from it. It
said what it thought God did in particular circumstances. A change
in the Church's teaching about this formerly "prevailing Catholic no-
tion" will not change the status of the people previously thought to
be there. It will change only our understanding of God's plan.
Incidentally, it is my impression that the idea of Heaven many peo-
ple, inlcuding many Christians, have is more like the Catholic idea
of Limbo than like the Catholic idea of Heaven. They seem to think
of it as a place or state of perfect natural happiness, with no idea
of what the Catholic Church calls the Beatific Vision, which is the
primary, essential happiness of Heaven. It is the direct, "face to
face" (1 Cor. 13:12) experience of the infinite perfection of God.
"We shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). We will be given a created
share, a created participation of God's divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"Hopefully I use English correctly. Disgustedly I watch others
massacre it." Steven Brust
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
Zev Sero
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
z...@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
Zev Sero
Andrew Stephenson
no...@nospam.demon.co.uk "Robert Sneddon" writes:
> Mary Gentle's ASH: A Secret History mentions a siege where the soldiers
> holding the city drove the inhabitants out, to disrupt the besiegers and
> preserve their own stores of food. The besiegers trapped the city folk
> in the moat but as a kindness took the children from the families and
> baptised them before returning them to their families to starve to death
> with them. That was nice of them, wasn't it?
Am I wrong to think parts of that resemble the siege of Alesia?
IIRC, Romans under J.Caesar, Esq, had numerous Gauls (captained
by Vercingetorix, all-round Likely Lad & Hard Man) trapped in the
city on the point of starving. Then Gauls had what they thought
a brainwave: send out the women and children. Surely the Romans
wouldn't harm them? The remaining defenders could stretch their
food further that way.
Unfortunately, JC was a ruthless bustard and refused to let those
women and children out of the large area between the city and the
encircling Roman fortifications. They were allowed to die, with
Gauls looking on (no doubt despondently).
I don't recall why the Gauls didn't re-admit their people, so all
could at least perish together and with a little dignity.
--
Andrew Stephenson
Joe Ellis
am...@deltrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew Stephenson) wrote:
Probably because the Romans would then charge the open gate, driving the
panicked women and children ahead of them, and giving the Gauls the
choice of slamming the gate in their faces (while the Romans charge into
their rear) or letting the Romans in (where they'd have proceeded to
kill them all anyway...)
Mike Van Pelt
Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>Incidentally, it is my impression that the idea of Heaven many peo-
>ple, inlcuding many Christians, have is more like the Catholic idea
>of Limbo than like the Catholic idea of Heaven. They seem to think
>of it as a place or state of perfect natural happiness, with no idea
>of what the Catholic Church calls the Beatific Vision, which is the
>primary, essential happiness of Heaven. It is the direct, "face to
>face" (1 Cor. 13:12) experience of the infinite perfection of God.
>"We shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). We will be given a created
>share, a created participation of God's divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
It sounds like my Baptist idea of Heaven is pretty much the
same as the Catholic one, then.
Marty Helgesen
<SNIP>
This is not a comment on what I wrote, but an additional note. A
Catholic blog at http://www.jimmyakin.org/ posted a link to an item
that begins:
Pope to change D&D cosmology
Vatican City (Reuters): The Pope is set to abolish the concept of
Limbo, overturning a belief held by Dungeons & Dragons players since
Gary Gygax first described the cosmology of the game in the Players
Handbook in 1978.
Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place where
the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised, as
well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and home of the
Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of theologians
summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up with a "more
coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the modern age is to
present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday.
The rest is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/dmmaus/236837.html
Charlton Wilbur
RS> Mary Gentle's ASH: A Secret History mentions a siege where
RS> the soldiers holding the city drove the inhabitants out, to
RS> disrupt the besiegers and preserve their own stores of
RS> food. The besiegers trapped the city folk in the moat but as a
RS> kindness took the children from the families and baptised them
RS> before returning them to their families to starve to death
RS> with them. That was nice of them, wasn't it?
In a worldview where this life is inherently short and unpleasant, but
sets up a far more important eternal punishment or eternal reward, it
is *very* nice of them. It's only from a materialist (and largely
atheist) worldview that the baptism is seen as laughable.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Karl Johanson
news:1133987879.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Marty Helgesen wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> This is not a comment on what I wrote, but an additional note. A
> Catholic blog at http://www.jimmyakin.org/ posted a link to an item
> that begins:
>
> Pope to change D&D cosmology
> Vatican City (Reuters): The Pope is set to abolish the concept of
> Limbo, overturning a belief held by Dungeons & Dragons players since
> Gary Gygax first described the cosmology of the game in the Players
> Handbook in 1978.
>
> Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place where
> the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised, as
> well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and home of the
> Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of theologians
> summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up with a "more
> coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the modern age is to
> present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday.
>
> The rest is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/dmmaus/236837.html
"I know we said that our former untestable religious conjecture was
really really The Truth. But now we admit that we were wrong with that
old stuff, and we want you to believe that our New & Improved untestable
religious conjecture (brought about by a 30 man squad of people who
honestly have know way of knowing if any of their religious ideas are
right, but they do have cool hats), is really really Realllyyyy THE
TRUTH!"
Karl Johanson
Zev Sero
> "I know we said that our former untestable religious conjecture was
> really really The Truth. But now we admit that we were wrong with that
> old stuff, and we want you to believe that our New & Improved untestable
> religious conjecture (brought about by a 30 man squad of people who
> honestly have know way of knowing if any of their religious ideas are
> right, but they do have cool hats), is really really Realllyyyy THE
> TRUTH!"
That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said that
limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always just a
guess. And the new proposal doesn't say that limbo definitely doesn't
exist, just that postulating it no longer seems necessary, so there's
no point in talking about it.
Karl Johanson
news:17rof.3269$n1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>
>> "I know we said that our former untestable religious conjecture was
>> really really The Truth. But now we admit that we were wrong with
>> that
>> old stuff, and we want you to believe that our New & Improved
>> untestable
>> religious conjecture (brought about by a 30 man squad of people who
>> honestly have know way of knowing if any of their religious ideas are
>> right, but they do have cool hats), is really really Realllyyyy THE
>> TRUTH!"
>
> That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said
> that
> limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always just a
> guess.
Why the use of the term 'doctrine' then?
> And the new proposal doesn't say that limbo definitely doesn't
> exist, just that postulating it no longer seems necessary, so there's
> no point in talking about it.
Karl Johanson
Zev Sero
> "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>:
>> That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said
>> that limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always
>> just a guess.
> Why the use of the term 'doctrine' then?
Where did you see this word used? The entire point is that Limbo has
never been part of Church doctrine.
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>> "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>:
>
>>> That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said
>>> that limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always
>>> just a guess.
>
>> Why the use of the term 'doctrine' then?
>
> Where did you see this word used? The entire point is that Limbo has
> never been part of Church doctrine.
In the link that the thread is about
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dmmaus/236837.html (sorry for not being
more clear).
"Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place where
the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised, as
well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and home of the
Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of theologians
summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up with a "more
coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the modern age is to
present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday. "
Karl Johanson
Zev Sero
> "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name> wrote in message
>>>"Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>:
>>>>That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said
>>>>that limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always
>>>>just a guess.
>>>Why the use of the term 'doctrine' then?
>>Where did you see this word used? The entire point is that Limbo has
>>never been part of Church doctrine.
> In the link that the thread is about
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/dmmaus/236837.html (sorry for not being
> more clear).
No, that link is not at all what the thread is about. Marty posted it
mid-thread, as a humorous aside.
> "Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place where
> the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised, as
> well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and home of the
> Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of theologians
> summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up with a "more
> coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the modern age is to
> present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday. ">
And you take this paragraph as some kind of serious source, which you
can parse exactly, and question its use of the word "doctrine"? Not
that it actually says Limbo was ever a doctrine. Read it again.
Marty Helgesen
Zev Sero wrote:
> Karl Johanson wrote:
> > "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name> wrote in message
> >>Karl Johanson wrote:
> >>>"Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>:
>
> >>>>That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said
> >>>>that limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always
> >>>>just a guess.
>
> >>>Why the use of the term 'doctrine' then?
>
> >>Where did you see this word used? The entire point is that Limbo has
> >>never been part of Church doctrine.
>
> > In the link that the thread is about
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/dmmaus/236837.html (sorry for not being
> > more clear).
>
> No, that link is not at all what the thread is about. Marty posted it
> mid-thread, as a humorous aside.
Yes, of course. In my earlier posting on what the Church really taught
about Limbo I said:
BEGIN QUOTE
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
<SNIP>
> I don't believe Limbo was ever part of an "Ex Cathedra"
> pronouncement, either, so it wouldn't be out of the question
> for the Catholic Church to announce that after several hundred
> years of due consideration, they've concluded that they were
> mistaken on that point.
That's right. The article on Limbo in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
written before World War I, ends, "Thus the Council of Florence,
however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of
perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and
this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the
prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the
standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long
ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's
justice and other attributes."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Note the words, "prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo."
That's several steps removed from a defined doctrine.
END QUOTE
Keith F. Lynch
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>> "I know we said that our former untestable religious conjecture was
>> really really The Truth. But now we admit that we were wrong with
>> that old stuff, and we want you to believe that our New & Improved
>> untestable religious conjecture (brought about by a 30 man squad
>> of people who honestly have know way of knowing if any of their
>> religious ideas are right, but they do have cool hats), is really
>> really Realllyyyy THE TRUTH!"
The complete catechism makes fascinating reading. Most people, when
speculating beyond the evidence, speak tentatively, and for not more
than a page or two. The catechism goes on for 845 pages, all with an
air of absolute certainty.
> That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said
> that limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always
> just a guess. And the new proposal doesn't say that limbo definitely
> doesn't exist, just that postulating it no longer seems necessary,
> so there's no point in talking about it.
The catechism, or at least my copy of it, makes no mention of Limbo.
(As a place name, shouldn't it be capitalized?)
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>> "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name> wrote in message
>>>Karl Johanson wrote:
>>>>"Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>:
>
>>>>>That would only be a valid criticism if they had ever actually said
>>>>>that limbo definitely existed. But they never did. It was always
>>>>>just a guess.
>
>>>>Why the use of the term 'doctrine' then?
>
>>>Where did you see this word used? The entire point is that Limbo has
>>>never been part of Church doctrine.
>
>> In the link that the thread is about
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/dmmaus/236837.html (sorry for not
>> being more clear).
>
> No, that link is not at all what the thread is about. Marty posted it
> mid-thread, as a humorous aside.
>
>
>> "Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place
>> where the souls of children go if they die before they can be
>> baptised, as well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and
>> home of the Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of
>> theologians summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up
>> with a "more coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the
>> modern age is to present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday.
>> ">
>
> And you take this paragraph as some kind of serious source,
No, I took the quote excerpt (which the context suggested was by Pope
John Paul II) coupled with the rest of the sentence, as a possibly a
germane source, in part because I saw nothing by the learned Catholic
who linked to the article, objecting to the use of the term 'doctrine'
in the part of the article quoted. (I acknowledge that the quote might
have been invented. I acknowledge that not everyone would interpret the
section as suggestive that limbo is doctrinal.)
> which you can parse exactly,
I don't recall' claiming infallibility with my ability to parse. Please
note that my point about the use of the term 'doctrine' was a question,
not a statement that you were wrong and that I am infallible in any way.
>and question its use of the word "doctrine"?
No, I originally thought I understood the use of the term 'doctrine'
quite well, in this context. It was your suggestion that they never
declared limbo as definitely existing, which lead me to reconsider
(thank you for that) and to ask you why they might have used the term
'doctrine' in reference to it.
>Not that it actually says Limbo was ever a doctrine. Read it again.
If I tell a group of people to come up with a 'new & improved'
hypothesis about something, I suggest that you would likely infer that
it will be replacing an existing hypothesis of some sort and not
replacing an existing 'wild ass guess' or some such. If I ask you to
design a faster and more fuel efficient car, I suggest that you will
likely infer that I am suggesting 'faster and more fuel efficient' with
respect to an existing car or cars, and not with respect to a horse
drawn carriage, a sled or a salt marsh harvest mouse. If you were asked
to come up with a "more coherent and illuminating" doctrine, I suggest
that you would similarly likely infer that it will be replacing some
existing doctrine. That's essentially what I did. I inferred from the
sentence structure that they were referring to the existing concept of
limbo as a 'doctrine', and reacted as such. You said that limbo wasn't
presented as fact, so I questioned the use of the word 'doctrine'. You
claim that the sentence doesn't suggest that the original concept was
claimed to be doctrinal, I claim that the structure of the sentence used
(in the referenced document), suggests that it is. Nothing more. I don't
offer the sentence structure as proof of the opinions of the Catholic
church (it could be a misquote, a quote lacking sufficient context, it
could simply have been poorly worded with respect to the intended
meaning, etc.) Again, I wasn't declaring you wrong and me infallible, I
was asking a question about the use of the term "doctrine". Perhaps you
inferred that I had intended the question to be more rhetorical than I
actually intended.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> "Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place
> >> where the souls of children go if they die before they can be
> >> baptised, as well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and
> >> home of the Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of
> >> theologians summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up
> >> with a "more coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the
> >> modern age is to present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday.
> >> ">
> >
> > And you take this paragraph as some kind of serious source,
>
> No, I took the quote excerpt (which the context suggested was by Pope
> John Paul II) coupled with the rest of the sentence, as a possibly a
> germane source, in part because I saw nothing by the learned Catholic
> who linked to the article, objecting to the use of the term 'doctrine'
> in the part of the article quoted.
Did you notice that the quote from John Paul ended immediately before
the word "doctrine?" That suggests that word is due to the author of the
piece, who obviously doesn't intend to be taken very seriously.
Zev Sero
>>>"Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place
>>>where the souls of children go if they die before they can be
>>>baptised, as well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and
>>>home of the Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of
>>>theologians summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up
>>>with a "more coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the
>>>modern age is to present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday.
>>>">
>>And you take this paragraph as some kind of serious source,
> No, I took the quote excerpt (which the context suggested was by Pope
> John Paul II) coupled with the rest of the sentence, as a possibly a
> germane source, in part because I saw nothing by the learned Catholic
> who linked to the article, objecting to the use of the term 'doctrine'
> in the part of the article quoted.
Except that the quote excerpt does not include the word "doctrine".
You didn't find it significant that the author of the piece had to end
the quote there, and insert his own word?
Joe Ellis
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>
> >>>"Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place
> >>>where the souls of children go if they die before they can be
> >>>baptised, as well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and
> >>>home of the Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission of
> >>>theologians summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up
> >>>with a "more coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the
> >>>modern age is to present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on Friday.
> >>>">
>
> >>And you take this paragraph as some kind of serious source,
>
> > No, I took the quote excerpt (which the context suggested was by Pope
> > John Paul II) coupled with the rest of the sentence, as a possibly a
> > germane source, in part because I saw nothing by the learned Catholic
> > who linked to the article, objecting to the use of the term 'doctrine'
> > in the part of the article quoted.
>
> Except that the quote excerpt does not include the word "doctrine".
> You didn't find it significant that the author of the piece had to end
> the quote there, and insert his own word?
Less significant than the idea that he had to use a reference to AD&D
creatures and "chaotic neutral alignment"... <<chuckle>>
Interesting "source" for Catholic "doctrine".
Zev Sero
He wasn't using the paragraph as a source for doctrine itself, but as
a source for a quote from an authority on doctrine. Except that the
quote didn't include the crucial word.
Joe Ellis
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
I was referring to the first part of the quote:
> >>>>>"Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place
> >>>>>where the souls of children go if they die before they can be
> >>>>>baptised, as well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and
.................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>>>home of the Slaadi.
.......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Catholic Church has long held Limbo to be the source of the chaotic
neutral alignment and home of the Slaadi?!?!?!?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Some "authority"!
Zev Sero
>>He wasn't using the paragraph as a source for doctrine itself, but as
>>a source for a quote from an authority on doctrine. Except that the
>>quote didn't include the crucial word.
> I was referring to the first part of the quote:
>>>>>>>"Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place
>>>>>>>where the souls of children go if they die before they can be
>>>>>>>baptised, as well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment and
>>>>>>>home of the Slaadi.
Well, yes, it was clearly a humourous piece. But such pieces aren't
precluded from containing accurate quotes from genuine authorities.
Had the quote actually contained the word "doctrine", his point might
have been fair, though it would have behooved him to check the accuracy
of the quote, since the author of such a piece might feel no obligation
not to make up quotes. But, as it happens, the quote didn't contain
that word, so the question is moot.
Karl Johanson
news:ddfr-2098D5.2...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <65Lof.128101$Gd6.62453@pd7tw3no>,
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> >> "Limbo has long been held by the Catholic Church to be the place
>> >> where the souls of children go if they die before they can be
>> >> baptised, as well as the source of the chaotic neutral alignment
>> >> and
>> >> home of the Slaadi. However, a 30-strong international commission
>> >> of
>> >> theologians summoned by the late John Paul II last year to come up
>> >> with a "more coherent and illuminating" doctrine in tune with the
>> >> modern age is to present its findings to Pope Benedict XVI on
>> >> Friday.
>> >> ">
>> >
>> > And you take this paragraph as some kind of serious source,
>>
>> No, I took the quote excerpt (which the context suggested was by Pope
>> John Paul II) coupled with the rest of the sentence, as a possibly a
>> germane source, in part because I saw nothing by the learned Catholic
>> who linked to the article, objecting to the use of the term
>> 'doctrine'
>> in the part of the article quoted.
>
> Did you notice that the quote from John Paul ended immediately before
> the word "doctrine?"
I referred to it as a quote excerpt and yes, I saw where the excerpt
ended. But I referred not just to the excerpt, but the rest of the
sentence, etc. as above. I suggested it was possibly germane.
> That suggests that word is due to the author of the
> piece, who obviously doesn't intend to be taken very seriously.
Possibly.
Karl Johanson
Zev Sero
>>Did you notice that the quote from John Paul ended immediately before
>>the word "doctrine?"
> I referred to it as a quote excerpt and yes, I saw where the excerpt
> ended. But I referred not just to the excerpt, but the rest of the
> sentence, etc. as above. I suggested it was possibly germane.
Did you really not notice that the piece is humourous, and not intended to
be taken seriously? And that it was *not* the subject of the thread?
I thought you recognised that, but still thought the quote itself might be
genuine (though that itself would have been a dubious proposition, since
humourists make up quotes all the time).
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>
>>>Did you notice that the quote from John Paul ended immediately before
>>>the word "doctrine?"
>
>> I referred to it as a quote excerpt and yes, I saw where the excerpt
>> ended. But I referred not just to the excerpt, but the rest of the
>> sentence, etc. as above. I suggested it was possibly germane.
>
> Did you really not notice that the piece is humourous,
I noted the humorous intent of some of it.
> and not intended to be taken seriously?
Humour doesn't preclude a serious point.
>And that it was *not* the subject of the thread?
What wasn't?
> I thought you recognised that, but still thought the quote itself
> might be
> genuine (though that itself would have been a dubious proposition,
> since
> humourists make up quotes all the time).
I use humour as an element in serious articles often. I note that many
others do as well.
Karl Johanson