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 .
John 21:11Apparently Aristotle believed that there were 153 species of fish in the entire world, because that's the number of species that he counted.Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
Soooo... the "153 fish" is a metaphor for all the nations, since Jesus was to make Peter and the apostles "fishers of men."
Matthew 4:18-19As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."
The fact is that the Church pre-existed the New Testament, so the early Church couldn't have been guided by a non-existent New Testament.
The two doctrines that particularly concern me are both in the Catechism:
the wrongness of the death penalty,
and the limits on war (which John Paul II said the US failed to meet in Iraq).
Presumably, the Catechim's opposition to the death penalty and the Church's opposition to the war in Iraq as violative of the principles of just war, are neither of them infallible teachings?
The case for both doctrines seems pretty clear, and very ancient.
So, am I bound, as a Catholic, to oppose the death penalty and the war in Iraq? I believe that I am.
I do not oppose the war in Iraq. I think that the Pope was wrong, and that the just war doctrine, as stated in the catechism, is unworkable in the modern age. Times have changed, and what was good doctrine in an age of slow warfare actually is outright bad doctrine today, because it will lead to paralysis and, ultimately, more death if it's followed.
So, am I a disobedient Catholic because I oppose the Pope and the Vatican on the war in Iraq, and think that the Just War Doctrine itself, as specified, is unworkable, obsolete, and therefore simply WRONG in the modern age?
Is my disobedience sin?
Do I need to confess it and repent it?
I think that I am, in fact, an unrepentant sinner on this point.
I think that the doctrine is clear, ancient, and in the catechism.
I think that the Catholic Church has taken a clear position.
I think that position is bad, morally wrong, and if followed would lead to the horrible deaths of a lot more innocent people than the sharp, prophylactic war and democracy building that America is undertaken.
Nevertheless, I think that my view on this places me quite out of sync with the authorities of the Church.
I think that's clearly sin.
But I am not going to change my mind on it, because the Church is wrong and the US leadership was right on this.
So, do I CONFESS the sin, unrepentantly?
And if I die unrepentant, do I go to Hell for the sin of disobedience?
I take communion every week. Is this compounding my sin of disobedience? Is everyone Catholic in the pews who supports the war (or the death penalty) and thereby rejects the teaching on both by the Magesterium of the Church in a state of sin, to whom communion is denied until repentance?
Or doesn't this particular disobedience matter to God?
It's not an idle question.
Ouch! I hope you are wearing your Martin Luther design asbestos underwear! :-)
I'm well aware of the distinction, but I mainly brought up the Limbus Patrum in answer to Protestants who were claiming there was no Scriptural support for same.
In any case, you're both right and I should be more careful to make the distinction.
Thank you for noticing! I am so pleased!
....when I was eleven, my mother had a full term baby who was born dead because the cord was wrapped around his neck. I can remember my father rushing the priest to the hospital to baptize the baby even though it died. From then on I my mother changed, of course she almost died at the same time, she was on her knees half the day or walking around with a rosary in the hands.
I can't remember if I knew about Limbo or just heard it a mass, but I do remember asking her if that was why she was praying constantly. She said yes, her baby boy was in Limbo and she wanted him in Heaven, and that she would never ask GOD for anything else her whole life time if he would let this baby go to heaven.....tears in my eyes....
I told her, she was wrong! I said, "All my life you have told me how wonderful and Loving GOD is and you honestly think that he has taken your innocent baby and denied him the right to live in Heaven with him???"
I told her I didn't believe it, "the Church got it wrong", our Loving Father would not do that.
to make a long story short, our fight continued for many years, 10 in fact, at the age of 49 years and two babies later, I found my mother in her bed, dead, with a rosary in her hand.
I think this article may help clear up some confusion about the "Just War" and "Capital Punishment" questions, and wether or not they're binding.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp
Luther was going against very, very strong consensus and tradition. Had he not issued this frontal challenge, perhaps we'd have gotten by for another 1000 years with a strong, solid, consensus about the Septuagint canon that had already served as the basis for a lot of dogmatizing.
But Luther (and other humanist-based Reformers) challenged it. Because he did that, Trent then dogmatized the Septuagint-based OT canon. This is a good example of how dogmatization proceeds. As long as everyone goes with the tradition and consensus, precise legislation is not needed. When an open challenge to the ancient consensus arises, more precise dogmatization is needed. Trent delivered that.
True.
as we are, in essence, nothing.
False! We're created in God's "image and likeness."
The logical argument against annihilation is that everything that God created is good (man especially), and God does not act in vain.
Haven't read the thread, but these scriptures come to mind.......
Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 10:14
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luke 18:16
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Very good. Thank you.
Benedict is very wise indeed.
Rev. 22:18, 19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Jude 1:3
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
I have no problem with the canonization as Jerome determined canon to be. In line with the Protestant view, he also disparages the additions to Daniel and Esther, in the prefaces to those books. He also referred to them as "apocryphal" and stated they are (to be) read in the church, but not to be cited for proof texts of doctrine.
Christ Himself attests to the canon of the Old Testament:
Matthew 23:35
35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
He is saying from the first martyr in the first book of the Old Testament to the blood of Zechariah in the last Book of the Old Testament. The death of Zechariah was told to us in II Chronicles 24:20-24. II Chronicles is the last book of the Jewish TaNaKh or Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible, though identical in content to the Protestant Old Testament, is not in the same order as Protestant or Catholic Bibles. The word of God was committed originally to the Jews. As the designated custodians of the inspired word of God, they knew which books were canonical, and which were not, and they knew this without the assistance of the yet to appear Catholic Church.
That's what I think.
And I do like how it ties into the abortion topic. They all deserve heaven too: so many of them are killed, and many of them die of natural causes.
I asked a very wise and reverent rabbi about this once, about why tiny (born) babies sometimes die, and he said that we all have work to do down here on earth. Work that makes both the earth and our souls better. Some souls are so close to perfect, they have so little work left to do here. It doesn't take them very long to complete their work before they are back up in Heaven with G-d. It's far more comforting than that they are unbaptized and going to that other place.
Then why did Luther remove books after those God-inspired men had established what was canonical?
You demonstrate again that you have no idea what Catholics believe.
SD
Luther like Jerome considered them as edyfying but not inspired. Even Pope Gregory the Great (ca 600 AD) when quoting 1 Maccabees says, "We address a testimony from books though not canonical, yet published for the edification of the Church." Most Protestant Bibles up until the 17th century had the Apocryphal books in them although included in a separate section from inspired Scripture. Doctrine should not be formulated through uninspired writings.
Inform me then.
Rather than just approaching this question from the angle of "is missing Mass a mortal sin" we should first call to mind the importance of the Mass. Each Sunday, we gather together as a Church with hearts filled with joy to worship Almighty God. At Mass, each faithful Catholic is fed with abundant graces. We are nourished by the Word of God. If we are in a state of grace, then we have the opportunity to receive our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. With this in mind, no one should simply think of attending Mass as fulfilling an obligation. To attend Mass is a privilege, and any faithful Catholic should want to attend Mass.
Because the Mass offers such precious gifts, provides the nourishment of great graces, and unites us as a Church, we do indeed have a sacred obligation to attend Mass. Remember that the Third Commandment states, "Keep Holy the Sabbath."
***************
Yes, and beautifully said.
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.