Vatican Considers Dropping "Limbo"

(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 .

I do believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

I don't believe that every opinion of every churchman was a good translation of the intent of the Holy Spirit.

It is not a question of "choosing" which "church" one wishes to belong to. There is only one Church, the one with the Holy Spirit in it, founded by God. Now, the Orthodox Church is, indeed, part of that Church, albeit divided from the Western half by politics and by mutual incomprehensions and theological differences on both sides.

Nevertheless, the sacraments of the Orthodox Church are the sacraments. This is all the Church. That we've divided it because we can't see past our own doctrines, and being legalistic, well, God sees past us and continues to hold the squabbling brethren within His one true Church.

I am not a bit legalistic.
My problem is that some of my Catholic bretheren have gone hard core legalistic on me, and start relying upon (what they presume to be) superior education in specific historical documents and thinkers to impose a rigid set of MANDATORY beliefs upon me, often citing to the doctrine of infallibility.

This requires either a legalistic response, or silence.
The problem with silence is that they are left completely in possession of the field, even when they are wrong.
To wit: many of them don't like the New Mass. The New Mass is the sacred canon of the Catholic Church. It is as holy as the Tridentine Mass. That is not even debatable.
They debate it anyway.
And that forces the ugly legalisms.
And causes me to seek The List of infallible doctrines, so that when a Catholic who is ardently passionate about, say, the prohibition of birth control, or the prohibition on divorced and remarried Catholics from taking the sacrament of communion, I can consult that list and say "Not there".

I am not sure that it is always the best thing to do to hold one's tongue and cling to simple and mystic faith when well-educated and vocal idiots are pronouncing their own opinions as infallible truths of the Church. Others listen to that, and are influenced by it. Sometimes, it is necessary for their peer - me - to push back and say "By what AUTHORITY do you speak?"

On this thread, Limbo came up.
There was also the bit about the wholesale change in the view of baptism from one pope to another. That ought to make us CAUTIOUS. But it doesn't seem to.

Leaving one rite of the Church, the Latin Rite, to go to an Eastern rite of the Church, or the Orthodox Church, is not the answer. I am a Latin. This is the appropriate rite. One is very like another in the essentials.

The short answer to your question is that I'm not really looking for the Unified Field Theory of Infallibility. What I am doing is asking questions that should be able to be answered by anyone who is going to repose too heavily upon Infallibility doctrine and the power of written traditions. When the questions can't be answered, this gives that person a moment's pause, and the opportunity to glimpse something deeper within the faith: that in the end our logic fails, but it's still true because it's held up not by logic, but by the Real Presence of God The Holy Spirit in the Church, especially the Sacraments.

If not one word had ever been written, that would still be true.

The New Testament is the inspired word of God, written by the hands of men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So was the Old Testament.

So are a lot of other things written by men, especially the Didache of the 12 Apostles.

My point was that if you take Jesus absolutely literally in the quote from the Gospels that you cited, JESUS tells YOU (not me) that the New Testament is NOT Scripture, because he says that nothing can be added to Scripture, and when Jesus said that, the only Scripture there was, was the Old Testament (which, by the way, included the Books of the Maccabbees, which features the atonement of the sins of the dead by the prayers of the living).

I assume that you use the KJV, which struck out 2 Maccabees, thereby deleting words of the Scriptures and defying what Jesus said in the passage you cited.

I assume you also treat the New Testament as Scripture, which is adding to Scripture as Jesus referred to it in that passage, given that not one word of any of the NT had been written when Jesus said those words.

I don't deny that the Bible is the inspired word of God, Old and New Testament.
I categorically deny that it is the only writing that God inspired, and also that the Bible is all one needs.

The Bible is not necessary to walk with God.
Only the real presence of the Holy Spirit is.
There are evil spirits too. The Church is necessary to help people keep the evil ones at bay and walk with the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is GOOD, but it's not God, and on its own it's just the work of human hands inspired by God. So was Mother Theresa's orphanage, but we don't worship her. We shouldn't exaggerate the importance of the Bible. That starts to get us into legalisms and lapses into idolatry.

It is very important for the RC Church to diminish the authority of the Bible by making their tradition equal in authority. It is only through doing this can myths such as "Limbo" be postulated.

I see you can't answer the question.

Ironically, Luther's doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" undermines the authority of Scripture, since the authority of Scripture and the canon of Scripture must be accepted fideistically under his rubric.

The fact that the Church wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture is consonant with Scripture, and helps to make a morally certain case for the inspiration and canonicity of the Catholic canon.

Proving Inspiration
...Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

"I see where you are coming from, and appreciate you explaining this to me. I just wonder if you aren't in fact giving more ammunition to those who would defeat the Church than you are succeeding in working against legalism."

The Church is the visible body of God on Earth.
God can't be defeated.
My initial question was simple.
The response to it was quite a bit of snarling and a piece that was not authoritative. When I asked the question again, I was told that I was being tiresome.

Well, my opinion of it is that the authority of the Church is damaged in the eyes of others when doctrines are asserted with excessive precision - about things nobody can possibly know at all unless he can say directly, as Joan of Arc did, that he was talked to by God or an angel and therefore thus and so is true - and then have to be taken back because they start to limp with time.

We Catholics are often far too proud. And this, too, hurts our evangelizing mission.

Consider: "No salvation outside of the Church".
This does not mean that only Catholics go to heaven.
The Catechism tells us that Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, people of all earthly faiths (and people who don't profess a religion) go to heaven. It explains that somewhere out there in the ether where we don't see or understand, that all of these people are somehow "in the Church", even though they don't know it, because God makes it so, mystically.
So, why do Catholics contradict the catechism and assert the position that their Protestant interlocutors have to convert to Catholicism or they will not be saved. That is not true, according to the catechism anyway. So why say it?
Und so weiter...

For those who may be interested, here's some information on the doctrine of infant baptism from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Scriptural References

The Book of Mormon
Moroni 8:4-26

4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.

5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

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.