[lbo-talk] Fox News Analyst: Gibson's "Passion" is Anti-Semitic

[C. G. Estabrook]

If you recall the theological commonplaces in illo tempore, you'll also
recall that baptism was an elastic concept (i.e., all Xn baptisms, not
just RC, were considered valid; baptism could be by intention, even
implicit, etc.) From Trent to Vatican II (16th-20th c.), the view of
salvation was agnostic: the church taught the existence of hell but not
that it was populated.

The cited passage condemns the opinion of a group of rigorists (at, of all
places, Harvard) who held Mel's view. --CGE

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 kjkhoo at softhome.net wrote:


> Whatever might have been the 'correct' theological position, limbo 
> was the place you went to if you weren't baptised. That was how it 
> was taught -- at least in the missionary schools in one colony: no 
> salvation outside the church; no matter how good you were, it was 
> limbo. So, unbaptised babies went to limbo; good non-catholics went 
> to limbo, and so on...
> 
> kj khoo
> 
> At 10:05 am -0600 26/2/04, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >That was not the position of the Roman church even before Vatican II. (For
> >the ecclesiastical-minded, see DS 3866-3873.) --CGE
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Jon Johanning wrote:
> >
> >>  ...The background to this is that, since the Council of Trent in the
> >>  16th century, which was responding to the Reformation, the official
> >>  Catholic position was that the Catholic Church was the "body of
> >>  Christ," meaning that if you were outside that "body" Christ couldn't
> >>  save you. The 2nd Vatican Council in the early 1960s became much more
> >>  inclusive, but old Mel, going with his sect's rejection of Vatican II,
> >>  feels he has to condemn his own wife to hell-fire (or at least
> >>  purgatory, I suppose -- I don't know old Mel's position on the exact
> >  > arrangements in the hereafter)...
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>