Posted on 11/29/2005 3:42:52 PM PST by Claud
Agreed. Limbo is a silly idea. Either we avail ourselves to the merits of Christ or we don't.
Then perhaps limbo isn't an actual state of being, only a theological Uncertainty Principle: "Where are they? Only God knows, we can't"
For something that isn't Catholic doctrine, it's suprising how ancient the idea is nevertheless.
It gets worse. There are some Calvinists (probably a minority) who hypothesize that God predestines infants who die before or very shortly after birth to eternal damnation or paradise based on His own whims. Some crap about how anything else being an affront to His Sovereignty.
So, let me get this straight....If "limbo" is dropped from Catholic theology, that means that the Catholic Church has been in error about this teaching for some 7+ centuries....Which prompts the question: what else does the church teach that's in error?
If you ever, ever, ever find that pic of Bubba oogling the Limbo dancer...ping me!
God doesn't know jack. That is why he made us the way we are.
On Limbo, this was a painting in a man's mind. Nothing more. It doesn't exist.
All humans go directly to heaven except the ones that understand the 10 commandments and go against them.
I think their is.
I'm surprised there isn't more folks noticing that "limbo" links with the issue of abortion in a clear way.
Hey, I can speak from experience...the suspension is only a long weekend, if you grovel properly via FReepmail to JimRob.
Infants don't avail anything. They're infants. God either provides for them or He doesn't. I'm convinced He does.
If limbo is not P.C. anymore, then how long will the RCC stick with purgatory?
I just love these "updates"!
Okay, well, I have no idea what to even say to something like that. That's goes beyond absurd.
I suppose that's why entire families (including infants) were baptized from the first days of the Early Church. Should we allow an infant to starve because he can't make a conscious choice to go to the refrigerator and get his formula? Christ works through His Baptism, even in infants.
Given that God is the alpha and omega, he already knows if you will make the choice to be baptized and can make his judgement based on that knowledge.
This is a strange statement. The reality is that the infant dies, yet you say that God knows how he/she would have made the decision to be baptized. That's a very convenient leap for you to make. However, wouldn't it be easier to just baptize the child?
Once that was clarified, the problem shifted--what does happen to unbaptized, original "sin"-saddled infants if they don't go to Hell for eternity? Limbus (Limbo) was one answer--a place free of suffering (hence not Hell) but short of heaven/beatitude.
It was in fact never, ever given any kind of official dogmatic status. That the nuns and priests taught it to children as if it were dogma doesn't make it dogma, it just makes them bad catechists.
Whether there can be two kinds of "heaven" or not is the issue. I'm with Benedict XVI in thinking that something that's not really heaven but isn't hell makes little sense.
So, get over it--we can live without Limbo. What's really going on here is completing the logical theological development set in motion when Anselm challenged the notion that original sin condemns to hell--that one could spend eternity in hell when one had never deliberately chosen against God. Officially getting rid of limbo actually completes the process of making clear that we do not believe that God is a monster who sends people to hell who have not freely chosen to disobey him, that original "sin" is not sin in the same sense that "actual sin" is, that we truly believe in free will.
It completes a process of finally getting the East and West on the same page regarding original "sin" and it clearly distinguishes Catholic belief on this from Calvinist damnation of of infants. If you do not believe in human free will but rather that God predestines the reprobate to hell without any role for their free will, then you'd have no problem with infants going to hell. But from the very early Church onward, Origen and all the fathers insisted that we truly are free to choose for or against God, and they asserted this in the face of deterministic, non-free-will Graeco-Roman philosophies. So to get rid of Limbo even as an option actually brings about a consistent defense of free will in Catholic theology, brings it into line with Eastern Orthodox theology and makes clearer the huge gult that separates both of them from Calvinism.
For all those reasons, I say, good riddance to Limbo.
Seems to me God was disappointed several times throughout Biblical history. Even regretted decisions He had made from time to time. Hard to be disappointed if you always knew the outcome in advance.
My hypothesis is that, when God delegates decision-making via free will, He doesn't cheat and peek at the answers.
Once that was clarified, the problem shifted--what does happen to unbaptized, original "sin"-saddled infants if they don't go to Hell for eternity? Limbus (Limbo) was one answer--a place free of suffering (hence not Hell) but short of heaven/beatitude.
It was in fact never, ever given any kind of official dogmatic status. That the nuns and priests taught it to children as if it were dogma doesn't make it dogma, it just makes them bad catechists.
Whether there can be two kinds of "heaven" or not is the issue. I'm with Benedict XVI in thinking that something that's not really heaven but isn't hell makes little sense.
So, get over it--we can live without Limbo. What's really going on here is completing the logical theological development set in motion when Anselm challenged the notion that original sin condemns to hell--that one could spend eternity in hell when one had never deliberately chosen against God. Officially getting rid of limbo actually completes the process of making clear that we do not believe that God is a monster who sends people to hell who have not freely chosen to disobey him, that original "sin" is not sin in the same sense that "actual sin" is, that we truly believe in free will.
It completes a process of finally getting the East and West on the same page regarding original "sin" and it clearly distinguishes Catholic belief on this from Calvinist damnation of of infants. If you do not believe in human free will but rather that God predestines the reprobate to hell without any role for their free will, then you'd have no problem with infants going to hell. But from the very early Church onward, Origen and all the fathers insisted that we truly are free to choose for or against God, and they asserted this in the face of deterministic, non-free-will Graeco-Roman philosophies. So to get rid of Limbo even as an option actually brings about a consistent defense of free will in Catholic theology, brings it into line with Eastern Orthodox theology and makes clearer the huge gult that separates both of them from Calvinism.
For all those reasons, I say, good riddance to Limbo.
What say you Mon? No limbo?
/jamaican accent
Apparently, either you have never erred, or you are a complete skeptic.
-A8
Yes, way beyond. Fortunately hardly anyone actually believes it, but I'm amazed at some who even speculate about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.