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 .
The inspiration of New Testament writings is explicitly asserted when Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke as Scripture (I Tim. 5:18), and when Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture also (II Pet. 3:15, 16).
Frankly I don't think the Lord cares what you, nor the Church want or think. It is as it is, Rome may be right or wrong, but the one thing I am sure of, on this matter, we do not know.
True, but doctrine isn't determined by what is most comforting. The goal is to discover the truth, and what we find most conforting does not determine it.
-A8
Much more so. But that does not show that unbaptized infants go to heaven. Unbaptized babies going to limbo is not "cruel", though it may be tragic, just as their death is tragic. Calling it "cruel" makes it sound as though the salvation of man is entirely voluntaristic.
-A8
We're on the same page here. Indulgences are largely ignored by most Catholics, including clergy, but we just had the Pope grant a plenary for some reason or another the other day.
These practices are part of a single-file salvation that encouraged each Catholic to focus on his own redemption, almost to the exclusion of our brothers and sisters.
Wrongheaded, IMO.
Since nobody knows, we are free to speculate. It is my opinion that the souls of unbaptized infants DO go to heaven. Limbo does not comport with a merciful God who would simply not give this soul an opportunity at salvation. Some Catholics are more Calvinist than they are Catholic.
Was Aquinas more Calvinist than Catholic?
The same could be said about the death of infants. Since we think that babies should not die, how much more so God? Therefore, a God who allowed millions of babies to die would be a "cruel" God. Ergo, atheism.
-A8
Aquinas was speculating about limbo. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since he also didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Not if they are in heaven.
. Am I being too simple in thinking either limbo exits or it doesn't? I mean, what's it worth to have church leaders suddenly decide, nope, doesn't exist. What the heck? Where's their proof or lack thereof? And further, what else in Catholic/Christian teachings exists or doesn't based on opinion? This is all really weak.>>>>>>>>>>>>
I find your attitude refreshing, I should have known better than to start posting on a thread about religion but this one set me off. I was raised in a Southern Baptist environment and was baptized into the church at thirteen, mainly I suppose, to stop the badgering by people who were determined to see me "saved". I cannot conceive of any way for this world to exist without a prime mover, which is what is meant by the word God, but I become furious when people want to insist that they know where he sends infants who die without being baptized. I consider the whole idea that a precious newborn child needs to be cleansed of "original sin" to be utterly absurd beyond my power to express. I may need all kinds of cleansing but it would seem to require a depraved mind to look on a newborn and see "original sin".
m curious - what got inside your head and stole your faith? You have so much hostility on this subject, I can't help but surmise that you've been directly affected by the loss of an infant? Or are ya' just bonkers?>>>>>>>>
I suppose by your lights I am just bonkers, if you want to know the rest read, "Letters From the Earth" by Mark Twain.
"From what I remember from my Catholic upbringing, "Limbo" implies an eternity apart from God's presence, but it's not the fire and brimstone and torment of "hell", either. But what kind of an eternity could anyone enjoy knowing they would never experience the presence of God?"
Now you're making arguments against the reasonability of Limbo. Valid as such arguments may be, do they constitute knowledge?
As a Catholic, of course, I can agree with you without in any way injuring my standing with the Church, while at the same time agreeing with the Church that this is outside the realm of the known, a matter of speculation.
Agree..A lot of concepts , such as limbo , are man made and not the word of Jesus. The 12/13th century cChurch can up with a lot of "funny" comcepts that have nothing to do with the message of the Christ.
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached"
Where does he say that every bit of the gospel he preached is set down in his surviving writings?
Contra: Jesus was God (Gospel of John). Unclean things were all about him, all the time. Adam and Eve sinned, and God came and talked to them before casting them out. They were unclean, but in God's presence.
You have changed the context. In his mortal state, Jesus is clearly identifiable as the Son of God. Following his resurrection, he admonished Mary to "touch him not" as he had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17). He clearly differentiates himself from God in this verse. The prayers he offers to God are directed to His Father not himself.
In Matthew 24:36, Jesus indicates that only his Father knows when he will return.
Adam and Eve were still living. The topic is whether they will return to God's presence after their mortal death.
At any rate, the Bible does not bind God. Revelation states "No unclean thing can enter into the presence of God." But if that is so, it is only because God chooses it to be so. He is God, He need not have it so. He chooses it to be so, and demands that it be so, and therefore demands that sins be paid...including by the sacrifice of His innocent Son. It was not NECESSARY that this happen, because nothing is required of God. God CHOSE for this to happen (assuming that our theology is actually correct). Which means that the reason that sin needs to be paid for is because God says so, and he says so because He feels like it, because by definition nothing can bind God, so there is truly no "necessary" with God.
God's word is his bond. He must be eternally consistent with any stated policy. His policy is that He will not tolerate an unclean thing in His presence. Allowing us free will set the stage for most of us to become unclean. There were two "fixes" for the problem. Lucifer (Satan) offered to force everyone to be perfect in exchange for ascending the throne of God. Jesus offered to risk living a sinless life among us to set up the unjust circumstance of having a sinless man punished for the sins of all men. Jesus understood the consequences before he volunteered. He succeeded in his mission, thus providing an avenue by which God the Father could have us return to His presence by virtue of having our sins forgiven by His Son Jesus. In addition to solving the problem of how we can return to the presence of God, Jesus also solved the issue of physical death via resurrection.
I suspect their are many people today that have no concept of what it means to be honorable. They have no concept of moral absolutes. We have to rely on written contracts enforceable by the government in place of a verbal agreement and a handshake. To suggest that God is not honorable in this fashion demonstrates a misunderstanding of his nature. He is not a fickle relativist.
"Protestants can't even agree on the Trinity"...
Do you know the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist?....A methodist says "there ain't no Hell" and a Baptist says "the Hell there ain't"!
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.