Posted on 10/08/2006 3:14:40 PM PDT by NYer
Pope Benedict XVI has decided to keep limbo in limbo a little longer. For nearly a year, the Church’s International Theological Commission has been working on a document expected to recommend that he formally abolish limbo, the place to which centuries of Catholic tradition held that babies who die without baptism and worthy pagans went. The Pope said a Mass with members of the commission, but, contrary to some news reports, he did not mention the concept in his homily and announced no decision. A commission member, Archbishop Bruno Forte, said the commission was still fine-tuning its document. “I think nothing will be ready to hand up to him until 2007,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yet one more example of the media trying to anticipate the Holy Father's decision and misleading the general public.
Honest question, I'm not all that versed on this topic...
If the Pope says that limbo no longer exists what exactly does that 'do' for a lack of a better word?
The media is best left in limbo.
The score:
Vatican 432,309, Liberal Media 0
Google leans far left :-)
The pope CAN'T SAY that Limbo NO LONGER exists. There are a few options:
1) He can say it never existed in the first place. This would be fine because it was never official teaching anyway.
2) He can say we don't know enough to say there absolutely is a Limbo. This is fine because we have no definitive info either way.
3) Or that we don't know enough to say there is no Limbo. This is fine because we have no definitive info either way.
4) Most likely he'll say: a) We don't know much, b) we entrust the souls involved to the mercy of God, c) Limbo was never an official teaching, but is reflective of the mercy of god which Christians have always assumed God possesses.
"The pope CAN'T SAY that Limbo NO LONGER exists. There are a few options:
1) He can say it never existed in the first place. This would be fine because it was never official teaching anyway.
2) He can say we don't know enough to say there absolutely is a Limbo. This is fine because we have no definitive info either way.
3) Or that we don't know enough to say there is no Limbo. This is fine because we have no definitive info either way.
4) Most likely he'll say: a) We don't know much, b) we entrust the souls involved to the mercy of God, c) Limbo was never an official teaching, but is reflective of the mercy of god which Christians have always assumed God possesses."
It seems to me he needs to affirm the teaching of the Council Lyon and of the Council of Florence, which indicated unbaptized souls of infants suffer loss. Consequently, they cannot enjoy heaven in the fullest sense as enjoyed by souls who have been baptized.
"The pope CAN'T SAY that Limbo NO LONGER exists. There are a few options:
1) He can say it never existed in the first place. This would be fine because it was never official teaching anyway.
2) He can say we don't know enough to say there absolutely is a Limbo. This is fine because we have no definitive info either way.
3) Or that we don't know enough to say there is no Limbo. This is fine because we have no definitive info either way.
4) Most likely he'll say: a) We don't know much, b) we entrust the souls involved to the mercy of God, c) Limbo was never an official teaching, but is reflective of the mercy of god which Christians have always assumed God possesses."
It seems to me he needs to affirm the teaching of the Council Lyon and of the Council of Florence, which indicated unbaptized souls of infants suffer loss. Consequently, they cannot enjoy heaven in the fullest sense as enjoyed by souls who have been baptized.
Concept of Limbo "no longer to explain the eternal fate of unbaptized babies"
You wrote: "It seems to me he needs to affirm the teaching of the Council Lyon and of the Council of Florence, which indicated unbaptized souls of infants suffer loss."
He could say any of the four things I pointed out and still fully affirm both councils.
"Consequently, they cannot enjoy heaven in the fullest sense as enjoyed by souls who have been baptized."
You are conflating two issues -- possibly. 1) The fact that they were not baptized in the usual way, does not forestall the mercy of God from possibly affecting their souls some way we have no knowledge of. 2) None of the four things I pointed out means that unbaptized people do enjoy heaven in the fullest sense. Even if unbaptized people cannot experience the fullest sense of heaven that doe snot mean they go to Limbo.
Do not confuse the issue of Limbo's existence with other issues. Whether or not Limbo exists does not mean that unbaptized babies do go to heaven, nor does mean they don't go to heaven.
You wrote: "It seems to me he needs to affirm the teaching of the Council Lyon and of the Council of Florence, which indicated unbaptized souls of infants suffer loss."
He could say any of the four things I pointed out and still fully affirm both councils.
"Consequently, they cannot enjoy heaven in the fullest sense as enjoyed by souls who have been baptized."
You are conflating two issues -- possibly. 1) The fact that they were not baptized in the usual way, does not forestall the mercy of God from possibly affecting their souls some way we have no knowledge of. 2) None of the four things I pointed out means that unbaptized people do enjoy heaven in the fullest sense. Even if unbaptized people cannot experience the fullest sense of heaven that doe snot mean they go to Limbo.
Do not confuse the issue of Limbo's existence with other issues. Whether or not Limbo exists does not mean that unbaptized babies do go to heaven, nor does mean they don't go to heaven.
You wrote: "It seems to me he needs to affirm the teaching of the Council Lyon and of the Council of Florence, which indicated unbaptized souls of infants suffer loss."
He could say any of the four things I pointed out and still fully affirm both councils.
"Consequently, they cannot enjoy heaven in the fullest sense as enjoyed by souls who have been baptized."
You are conflating two issues -- possibly. 1) The fact that they were not baptized in the usual way, does not forestall the mercy of God from possibly affecting their souls some way we have no knowledge of. 2) None of the four things I pointed out means that unbaptized people do enjoy heaven in the fullest sense. Even if unbaptized people cannot experience the fullest sense of heaven that doe snot mean they go to Limbo.
Do not confuse the issue of Limbo's existence with other issues. Whether or not Limbo exists does not mean that unbaptized babies do go to heaven, nor does mean they don't go to heaven.
Sorry, about the multiple posts. My computer is being very difficult.
"You are conflating two issues -- possibly. 1) The fact that they were not baptized in the usual way, does not forestall the mercy of God from possibly affecting their souls some way we have no knowledge of. 2) None of the four things I pointed out means that unbaptized people do enjoy heaven in the fullest sense. Even if unbaptized people cannot experience the fullest sense of heaven that doe snot mean they go to Limbo."
I did not say that they go to a place called limbo - nor am I constraining God's mercy. We believe as Catholics that the church teaches in the Lord's name, so what the church solemnly professes in a council is the truth. Therefore, I said in my opinion the pope needs to affirm the explicit teachings of the councils of Lyon and Florence, i.e. that the unbaptized souls of infants suffer a loss. This "loss" throughout the history of this debate seems to have been understood as the loss of the Beatific Vision.
Can they be in the Lord's presence eternally without seeing the beatific vision? In my opinion - "yes." Sinners saw and were in the presence of the Lord while he walked the earth, I would think unbaptized infants would at experience as much, if not more. But, any theological commission - it seems to me - would have to affirm the state of such infants in heaven is unique (and in some way lower), unless one is to say the church erred at Florence and Lyon (which I reject). Some of the 'dump limbo' crowd want to seemingly ditch past teachings that touch on the issue. That was my only point.
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.