Posted on 11/29/2005 3:42:52 PM PST by Claud
Vatican considers dropping 'limbo'
Theologians meet to look again at fate of unbaptised tots
(ANSA) - Vatican City, November 29 - The Catholic Church appears set to definitively drop the concept of limbo, the place where it has traditionally said children's souls go if they die before being baptised .
Limbo has been part of Catholic teaching since the 13th century and is depicted in paintings by artists such as Giotto and in important works of literature such as Dante's Divine Comedy .
But an international commission of Catholic theologians is meeting in the Vatican this week to draw up a new report for Pope Benedict XVI on the question. The report is widely expected to advise dropping it from Catholic teaching .
The pope made known his doubts about limbo in an interview published in 1984, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal department .
"Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith," he said. "Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis." According to Italian Vatican watchers, the reluctance of theologians to even use the word limbo was clear in the way the Vatican referred in its official statement to the question up for discussion .
The statement referred merely to "the Fate of Children who Die Without Baptism" .
Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, gave the commission the task of looking at the issue again in 2004. He asked experts to come up with a "theological synthesis" able to make the Church's approach "more coherent and illuminated" .
In fact, when John Paul II promulgated the updated version of the Catholic Church's catechism in 1992 there was no mention of the word limbo .
That document gave no clear answer to the question of what happened to children who died before being baptised .
It said: "The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God...In fact the great mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved, and the tenderness of Jesus towards children... allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who die without baptism." This view is in stark contrast to what Pope Pius X said in an important document in 1905: "Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having original sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory." According to teaching from the 13th century on, limbo was also populated by the prophets and patriarchs of Israel who lived in the time before Jesus Christ .
This is exactly the way that Christians should view our responsibility: that we are to be Christ to the world, which is why we have to constantly be saying "yes" to Him and to our place in His Plan.
Beautifully said, livius.
Rumor has it that the Hokey Pokey and the Chicken Dance are next to go.
That's a very convenient leap for you to make. However, wouldn't it be easier to just baptize the child?>>>>>>>>>>
This is incredible, do you mean to say that you actually believe that the mere act of baptism is anything other than a symbol. Were you born without a brain or did you have it surgically removed?
My question to you is, Did the thief on the Cross go to Heaven? If the answer is NO, then Christ is a liar. If the answer is YES, when was he baptised?
Can you name an important doctrine that all Protestants agree on, excluding the doctrine that "we're not Catholics!"
Protestants can't even agree on the Trinity.
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.>>>>>>>>>
This is totally lost on far too many and it is one of the main reasons I now totally reject the idea of Hell, despite my Southern Baptist origins!
Maybe the problem is Limbo is full.
Nice try, it works only if one already starts from your premises. So it will work if you are talking to yourself. As an argument toward someone who disagrees with you, it's useless. You're going to have to make a case for the validity of your premises, not merely assert them.
Respond, if you would be so kind, to the following formulation from a Latin perspective, and compare it to the Eastern concept of theosis:
We cannot enjoy heaven without God's grace, which grants to us gifts above our nature (super + natura)--the most important of which is to be able to stand in the presence of the Divinity and share to some limited degree in His Divine life (Theosis?).
Now, supposing there is a soul who dies without these supernatural gifts AND who has not by *actual and personal* sin sentenced himself to the torments of Hell. What happens to this soul?
Those theologians who advanced the theory of limbo did not advance it as a part of hell, but rather as a part of heaven, short of the beatific vision. They wanted to keep hell unified (as punishment for sin) but were willing to divide heaven. Ratzinger was saying that both should be kept unified and limbo makes no sense.
I don't blame you for asking a question like that, since the whole thing could be pretty perplexing (not to mention annoying) (or even offensive) to folks who are trying to sort out what the Church actually teaches on Divine authority.
Here's the thing. Some things are certainly and infallibly true (e.g. Jesus is God.) These are dogmas. All Christians must believe this.
Some things follow on the basis of strict logic (e.g. Mary is the mother of Jesus, therefore she can be called the mother of God.)
Some things are certain and reasonable inferences, and therefore also doctrines (e.g. the Bible says, God abhors the shedding of innocent blood. But what if you kill a bunch of innocent people by suffocation? No blood shed, so it's okey-dokey? No--- because we can reasonably infer that what God abhors is murder by any means.)
Some things are common pious beliefs (e.g. every person has a guardian angel.) But it's not a defined doctrine. Some things are theological speculations (the four properties of the transformed human body after the resurrection: agility, impassibility, clarity, and subtility.) I like that one a lot, in fact, but it's just a hypothesis.
People WILL speculate about stuff like this. You can't stop them. It's the way people are.
But if you want the straight scoop on what's a TRUTH OF THE FAITH, you get that from the authoritative sources: the Ecumenical Council documents, the consensus of Patristic teachings, the infallible statements of Popes (which are extremely rare), and the Catechism.
You can Google the Catechism ---- it's searchable. I have it in my Favorites
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
So, speaking for myself, I'm finding it harder and harder to use ignorance as an excuse.... 8-P
That's the very definition of hell.
As to Augustine's vision of theology, surely you don't agree with his view of sexuality and the body. Augustine had the strange notion that, unless one formed a positive intention to procreate, any sexual act that did not have this particular desire in mind was a mortal sin.
Augustine was an "either-or" kind of guy, whose response to his own sexual randiness in his youth was to look askance at sex only as a necessity for conception.
This is what the Church has always taught. The sacraments were not merely symbols, but means of grace. God has chosen to work through material tokens, to save us material beings. The Gnostic heretics were the ones who thought salvation was wholly by way of reason (i.e. knowledge and belief).
-A8
How do you mean?
"Reformulate it as follows. One *cannot* attain heaven without supernatural grace. Original sin or not, we must become "above our nature" to live in heaven. Now, if someone commits no sin worth punishment in hell, and yet does not have supernatural life, then where do they go?"
France ??
>>>>>>Baptism DOES NOT SAVE ANYONE!
Why then should we be baptized?>>>>>>>
Let me say at the start that despite my Southern Baptist origins, I do NOT Believe in hell! Having said that, it should be obvious to those who do believe in it that salvation cannot be gained by immersion in water, sprinkling or whatever, all that is merely a symbolic act. You could be baptized into the society of drunken fools, would that save you? Submitting to Baptism is a symbol to show the world that you have accepted Jesus Christ as saviour, what if you submit to baptism only as a means to ingratiate yourself with people in the church who can help you in your business? Would that save you?
I actually believe that, yes.
The act of baptism confers the grace it signifies, whether in an adult or infant.
That was the belief of the Church for 1500 years.
Were you born without a brain or did you have it surgically removed?
I was baptized as an infant, and see through the eyes of Faith. I don't really expect you to understand.
I wonder if God still hears the crying of all the kiddies he killed in the flood.
Do any of you ever think about what you are all saying. There is no way all of these various beliefs can be right since so many of you contradict each other. And that is only among the "Christians". For each one of you, you are convinced you have the "correct" faith and others are in error. Christ is the answer, but then there are the Jews & Muslims. Then we can go to Buddist and on and on and on. Since there is really no way to prove which one faith is the "True" one, looks like to me, each person CHOOSES to Believe in a faith that gives them the comfort they need. Even going so far as to "adjust" that system as the need arises. Well good luck to us all, God must be laughing His $ss off!
Good point. Then I'll revert to "trusting in God's mercy." 8-)
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.