Recently, the Vatican's International Theological Commission allegedly released a document indicating that Limbo, the place where unbaptised babies go after death, may be restrictive, and that there are good reasons to hope that they might be in heaven.  (Also see the Pontifications blog.)

This has caused some consternation in some corners of the Church.  But then so did the concept that God could understand languages other than Latin.  Some cling to the idea that Limbo is a formal part of the Tradition of the Church, when really it isn't, as can be seen by looking at the hopes and prayers of the saints throughout the centuries.  It certainly has never been defined as such, and I've only seen claims regarding texts explained better elsewhere.

So I took a look at some of what HH Pope Benedict XVI said prior to his becoming pope.

This is a very wise man.  I've always been impressed by him, and this leads me to believe that he thinks at a level far above most.  He's orthodox, very much so, in his theology, and he's not going to go around approving documents that are not orthodox in their teachings.

Some say that he's ignoring tradition - no he's not.  He has it very well understood.  He knows what the history of limbo is, and knows where it can and can't go.  Think again.

Some say he's fallen prey to the "hell doesn't exist and because God loves all people, all people will be saved" mentality.  Some say that he's fallen prey to the modern lovey cuddley idea that punishment is bad and cute babies can't be punished.  In reality, he's far too smart and far too orthodox for that.  Think again.

Some say that the idea that the unbaptised can go to heaven detracts from the importance of the teaching that salvation comes through Christ alone.  In reality, that is far from the truth.

HH Benedict XVI has shown that he can, without betraying the historical truths contained in the Apolostic faith taught by the Catholic Church, preach God's love and mercy by raising our understanding of those truths beyond the rigid interpretations required by a need for defensiveness and protectiveness, as is often the case in apologetics, canon law, and other branches of theology.

I'm hoping for more incredible insights from one of the most brilliant minds God has given to lead the Church.  Hopefully more will be said, from him directly, on this issue. God is not the abortionist of the soul.

Some worthwhile reading: Limbo In Limbo? ... by Jimmy Akin Development and Negation III: limbo ... by Michael Liccione Limbo ... by Alvin Kimel [a 5-part series; each part separately below] Limbo: Doctrinal Development in Action ... by Alvin Kimel Consigning Limbo to Oblivion ... by Alvin Kimel Keeping the kids in limbo ... by Alvin Kimel The doubt that leads to limbo ... by Alvin Kimel The emptiness of limbo ... by Alvin Kimel Evangelium Vitae ... HH Pope John Paul II

I'm not going to join the abortion debate much ... it's just a sick practice.

A few quotes from "Gambling with abortion", a well-rounded look at the issue:



The following comment gives a good analogy, though:


Women treat their dogs better than their own unwanted litters.

First posted here.

God's Holy Days is a video by Brother Bob Fishman, an ex-Jew who highlights the significance of the Jewish holy days for modern Christians.

The Jewish Roots of Catholicism is another video by the same guy.

He's a convert to the Church from Judaism. I hear it's well worth watching, from Catholics who were once Armstrongites of sorts, who are pleased to see that such public appreciation for our Jewish heritage does not only exist within the walls of the WCG et al.

Source:
South Africa's U.N. Votes Disappoint Some
Washington Post, Monday, April 16, 2007

Today is the Holy Father's 80th birthday.  He was born on April 16, 1927, on Holy Saturday.

And on Thursday he will have been pope for 2 years.

Happy Birthday Pope Benedict XVI!!!

That is what greeted me in my mailbox when I got home.

It's from the Medigram, Volume 15, Number 6, April 13, 2007, sent out by The South African Medical Association.

What a way to start a weekend.  It's too sick to comment on further.  Can't we kill puppies instead?  Or poison kittens?

The Vatican is moving forward fast with technology - the pope with his ipod, nuns with e-mail.

But they might want to take advantage of Gmail Paper.  A novel concept that will allow them to get their Gmail e-mail sent to them in printed form.  The only drawback is that the pope can't print out what he listens to on his ipod - Gmail Paper says they can't print MP3 and WAV files.

Sources - Asia News; Annunciations; Whispers in the Loggia [full sermon text]; Young Fogeys

Fr Jay Toborowsky comments on his Young Fogeys blog:


I've been waiting years to hear this most logical 14 Nisan crucifixion timing from a Catholic priest.  And now I hear it from the pope himself.  I always get given the 15 Nisan story.  The explanation above goes a long way to explain why the Wednesday crucifixion theory of Herbert Armstrong is wrong, so ironically it was Herbert Armstrong who was adamant that Jesus died on 14 Nisan.

That is the obvious time for Jesus to have died.  After all, Jesus death wasn't timed to coincide with the killing of the lambs, nor was it meant to be approximate; the Passover lamb sacrifice foreshadowed Jesus' death, and its original timing was designed to coincide with Jesus' death.

Good Friday no reason to avoid bath, Catholic church tells Filipinos

Hmmm.

"An elite of their own people is oppressing them and denying them the most basic human rights" was included in their statement.

The statement mentions the corruption of the Mugabe government, and the violation of human rights in Zimbabwe.

The bishops ask for prayers on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe.

Adventism seems to like sticking up anti-Catholic billboards.  This time it was an Adventist spin-off denomination, Eternal Gospel Church.  This was around the beginning of February, and commented on at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

Interestingly, the sign people, CBS Outdoors, refused to let Catholics pay for a sign simply stating the truth - "CBS sponsors Anti-Catholicism."

Other photos available on the Catholic League site.

Articles:
CBS Stifles Free Speech; Promotes Anti-Catholicism
CBS Pulls Anti-Catholic Billboards

CBS Outdoors apologised for the offensive signs, and removed them.

CBS Outdoor made the right decision today to remove the bigoted statements attacking the pope and the Catholic Church as the Antichrist. - Catholic League president Bill Donohue.

Interestingly, on their website, they list as an upcoming speaker Jan Marcussen, someone I had contact with some years ago.  His newsletter was one of the most rabid I've ever come across, grossly misrepresenting anything not in agreement with them.  I wrote them a letter, and it made it into the newsletter - completely distorted, made to say things I never wrote.  This was one of the first contacts I had with Adventism.  It looks like nothing has changed, at least as far as this group goes.  Probably why mainstream Adventism wants nothing to do with them.

In his latest Endtime Issues newsletter - number 169 - Samuele Bacchiocchi repeats several myths about Easter.

Bacchiocchi's research fails to take into account the following:

- Easter is an English word, and the observance of Easter predated the times when English and pre-English were important enough to influence the Christian faith.  Had he taken this into account, he wouldn't claim that Easter's origins are linked to Eostre etc.  In fact the earliest evidence for such a linguistic link is unreliable, and comes centuries after the practice actually began.  At best his issue can be with the English word, not the practice itself.

- Easter and its observance began outside of any culture that was influenced by the paganism he suggests it came from.  Had he taken this into account, he wouldn't claim that Easter's origins are linked to Eostre etc.

- There were two logical choices in the early Church - celebrate Jesus' death and resurrection according to the Jewish Passover dates, or celebrate them according to the week days on which they occurred.  Since those are quite obvious possibilities from the calendar, why go to extremes to link it to paganism?  The arguments used by those debating the two possibilities are biblical, not pagan.

- Like Easter, Lent originated with Christian piety, following the biblical events that count to 40.  40 years in the desert prior to the entry into the promised land.  40 days in the desert before Jesus started his ministry.  The history of Lent and how it developed into the form it has today - multiple forms, in fact - is well known, and has nothing to do with paganism.

- Lent developed in a culture where the specific pagan influence he blames it on was highly unlikely, and if it was present, highly unlikely to be incorporated into the Christian faith.  Not only that, but honest research into the "lents" of pagan culture show that they were often not 40 days long, and often at different times of the year.  That doesn't help his case much.

Why does Bacchiocchi need to ascribe Easter and Lent to paganism, when the most obvious source is biblical piety being applied to their calendar by Christians?

He needs to attribute Catholic practice to paganism.  He needs to establish his sabbath.  He needs to find fault with Catholicism in order to promote his Adventism.

Were he to put his mind to it, he could just as easily claim that the divinity of Christ was a Catholic teaching that originated with the same paganism he links to Easter.  In fact, many Christian minorities do just that.  The same for baptism, communion of ANY sort, etc.  Why go along with one half of the theory?  Is it a bias, applying his logic only to teachings and practices he opposes, but ignoring its application to his own teachings and practices?

This is a flaw in many theological systems.  Attribute what you don't like to paganism, and a) ignore the logical implications for your own beliefs, and b) ignore the evidence that paganism had nothing to do with what you don't like.

The latest Adventist Review issue online, Angel Rodriguez, director of the Biblical Research Institute based at the General Conference, has some very insightful comments to make on the Easter debate.


And also:


(A side note: the cultic Levitical regulations include the Sabbath and diet laws.  Rodriguez refers to Hebrews 7, but forgets that Hebrews shows a change in the law as well as a change in the entire covenant - the Sabbath commandment forming part of the wording of the Old Covenant itself.)

In an article objecting to Easter by George Reid:


Why not?  Jesus rose on the Sunday after Passover.  So the Sunday after Passover is surely a quite appropriate date.  As for the artificial formula, it's no more artificial than the formulas used in the Jewish calendar, on which the formula is based.  It just doesn't use the Jewish calendar directly, because changes were made and the Christians didn't see fit to follow post-Christian Jewish alterations to the calendar.


Huh?  Yes, that's ONE way of interpreting the timing.  If we want to be controlled by the Jewish calendar, and if we do not see the biblical significance in the 8th day, the step beyond the 7 into the 8, the

Adventism doesn't like those concepts, so it chooses not to see them in the Bible.

And the early Christians?  Hmmm ... the disciples of the Apostle John would disagree.  The secret here is to define "early" to predate the earliest evidence.  And it's unlikely that, considering what John's students did, the Apostles and their other contemporaries saw such importance in the resurrection, but failed to make the association with Passover each year.


Take advantage Easter, but don't associate it with the resurrection of Christ?  Use Easter for evangelisation purposes ... but don't assign any religious meaning to the day??  Is it too Catholic?  This is just a case of artificial exclusiveness.  A bit too reactionary still.


Which is why celebrating the resurrection is so important for sharing our common faith.  Not because it's a date about which we can't differ, but because it's a date on which we should be united as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Anyway, the decision to have Easter when it is, is not a doctrinal position of the Catholic Church.  The day is only important because of the event we use it to celebrate.  Those who turn the timing of that celebration into a doctrinal issue to divide Christians ... in the words of Ebenezer Scrooge, "Bah, humbug" to them.

The Adventist Review articles cited are:
Should Christians Observe Israelite Festivals? [Angel Rodriguez]
Passover: An Adventist Perspective [Angel Rodriguez]
A Note About Easter [George Reid]

I applaud the Adventists, and others, who have seen the significance of Easter and Lent, and choose to celebrate Christ's resurrection as the early Christians did, and set time aside in their calendar for preparation for that celebration, along with the rest of their brothers and sisters in Christ, throughout the centuries.

What are the origins of Lent?  Did the Church always have this time before Easter?

Fr William Saunders tells us.

You can find the answer here, and find out about how Lent is returning to Christian worship.

Some Catholics say that the last day of Lent is the Wednesday before Holy/Maundy Thursday, but say that it starts on the first Sunday of Lent, and not on Ash Wednesday.  This allows for Lent to contain 40 days, including Sundays; but it results in a peculiar calendar.  There is a comment by a priest, presumably Catholic, on Jimmy Akin's blog stating this.


Jimmy Akin's blog itself says that it ends on Holy Thursday, which begins the Easter Triduum - Holy/Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday.  This results in Lent having 44 days, including the Sundays.  If the supporters of this leave off Sundays, Lent is only 38 days long.

Akin points out that the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar state the following:


This is a document issued by the Vatican's Sacred Congretation of Rites in 1969.

Exclusive means Lent ends before the Mass of the Lord's Supper, i.e. on the Thursday.  So Lent would be 43 and a bit days.

Sundays?  Since the wording of the text in no way indicates that Sundays are excluded from Lent, we should assume it means they are included.

On the same page on Akin's blog another Catholic priest says:


In support of not fasting on Sundays, he says the following:


An item written previously by Akin states:


So traditionally, the 40 days of Lent are Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday, inclusive of both, and exclude Sundays.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 540, says:


So is it 40 days or not?

The Circular Letter Concerning the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts, from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship in 1988, states:


The Catholic Encyclopedia [Lent] explains this idea:


And the statement "Lent runs from Ash Wednesday until the Mass of the Lord's Supper exclusive" makes it clear that Lent starts on Ash Wednesday.

The Directory On Popular Piety And The Liturgy, from the Congregation For Divine Worship And The Discipline Of The Sacraments, 2001, says:


I'm not sure if that is inclusive or exclusive.

This last link, Forty Days & Forty Nights, is designed to make the problem worse.
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/40-Days-Nights.htm

Going with the Holy Saturday end to Lent are the following sites:


Going with the Holy Thursday end to Lent are the following sites:


Going with the "Sundays are part of Lent" idea is the Catholic Encyclopedia [Lent]

We know the following:

• Lent starts on Ash Wednesday, and includes the days between Ash Wednesday and the Sunday following Ash Wednesday
• Lent didn't always start on Ash Wednesday
• The Church of Milan still excludes Sundays from Lent, and starts Lent on a Sunday, ending it on a Saturday.  Whether it's the Saturday before Easter Sunday, or the Saturday before Palm Sunday, I haven't worked out.  Their Lent is 36 days long, not 40
• Eastern Lent includes Sundays and ends on the Friday before Palm Sunday, but considers the time between then and Easter to be a fast, just not a Lenten fast
• Before Lent was structured as it is now, Sundays were sometimes excluded, and Saturdays were also sometimes excluded, and Lent could last as long as 8 weeks (8x5=40)
• Lent has not always been 40 days long, although it has been symbolised by 40 days even when it was not a literal 40 days in length
• Lent was 6 weeks long at one point in time, with only 3 of those weeks reserved for fasting

Jimmy Akin seems to have the best arguments, pointing out which documents are intended to be the authoritative ones, and so he's probably right.

If so:

• Lent starts on Ash Wednesday
• Lent ends on Holy Thursday before the Mass of the Lord's Supper
• Lent includes Sundays
• Lent is 43 and a bit days long

But it's really not that important.  The period from Ash Wednesday till Holy Saturday is a period of fasting and penance, and the timing is just custom, not written in stone.

As Akin says on yet another post on the issue:


And he has a whole range of posts linked from one post entitled Annual Lent Fight.  That's what it is.  A fight about what's really going on.  Does even the Pope know?

Lent has changed in the past, it can change again.  It's not dogma.  It's just a practice.  When I become Pope I'll have to change things to my preferred Lenten calendrics.  Until then, we'll be confused.