Vatican Considers Dropping "Limbo"

ANSA.it ^ | 11-29-2005 | unknown

[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 Westerner]

"This could end Chubby Checker's career."

What about the socks that got lost on the way to the dryer? I was sure they were in Limbo.

[BnBlFlag]

"As a practising Catholic, I have never understood how a Catholic could walk away from the Sacrements."

As an Evangelical Anglican Protestant saved by Grace, I have never undertood how a Protestant could join the Catholic Church.

[Schwaeky]

no he's still got the twist....

[Schwaeky]

Now if Benedict XVI will do some material repairs to the Church, ie kick out the gays and undo the liturgical reforms of VC II.

[Free Baptist]

"At no point was your body washed with physical blood."

At no time has my body been PHYSICALLY washed with blood. Salvation of neither the soul or body requires this. And that is just one good reason to deny that baptism with water has the affect of washing away sin; water baptism cannot do this.

But to say that God having washed us in the Blood of Jesus Christ is but metaphoric is also NOT accurate. It may seem like a mystery to many, but in the economy of God's workings there is a sense in which He did in fact LITERALLY wash us in the Blood of Jesus Christ for the cleansing away, once for all, of our sins (Revelation 1:5; 12:11). To get that sense directly from the Scriptures, please read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 carefully, especially 9:12-14; 10:19; 13:20. Then 1 Peter 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25; 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; 2:13; Colossians 1:14, 20.
May I insert here that the subject of the Blood is just one reason that we have rejected all English versions of the Bible that were produced from the Vaticanus-type or Sinaiticus-type Greek manuscripts (corrupted in the Alexandrian school between 100 and 300 A.D.), which found their way into the revision committees since 1881. If you compare the "Blood" references between those English versions and the English translations from the Textus Receptus (Antiochan/Byzantine-type) Greek manuscripts, you will find that the whole doctrine of the Blood of Christ has been weakened and obscured by the former. Simply, all modern English versions of the Bible, especially since 1950 have a severely weakened set of verses on the Blood of Christ when compared to the King James Bible.
Physical and literal are not necessarily synonyms, and spiritual and literal are not opposites. Many people can't see something as LITERAL if it is not PHYSICAL. But the physical creation is just a PART of God's creation, and only one of the spheres in which He operates. This is why I would not say that I am only speaking metaphorically with regard to being washed in Jesus' Blood.

Too mystical? Too theological? It requires much more space than I feel I should use here. I have written more on the subject. Anyone is welcome to request more in private correspondence.

[Free Baptist]

"Christ DID say that you must be born of water (baptism) and..."

You are the one who placed the word "baptism" in your interpretive parenthesis. The context in John 3 is obviously the water of the mother's womb, not a church's baptistry.

[Free Baptist]

"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."

The above statement of gscc is correct. Rome's dogmas "evolved" over more than 1,000 years on these kinds of postulations which require a tossing-out of the Bible as to its authority. It appears that many such pieces of dogma were (and are now!) very useful to the Vatican in gaining control over mens' consciences and pocket books. Americans may not see this as much as people in countries much more dominated by Romanism. In the Philippines, for example, Roman priests will gladly accept the last peso of a starving family as payment to perform a Mass in which prayers are said for the dead, to (according to their dogma) to get the dead out of either Limbo or Pergatory. And the Vatican is doing nothing to stop this.

[Preachin']

"they do not deserve paradise"

Dererve? Who ever deserved anything the Lord ever gave him/her?

[Preachin']

“There is a biblical basis for it. St Paul talks about a person being saved, but only as through fire, meaning a person is purified of his sins by the cleansing fire of purgatory after which he is saved - fit to enter heaven.”

Is this the passage to which you prefer:

1 Peter 1:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
………………………………………………………………………………………
If so, that is not a worthy argument for Purgatory.

That scripture speaks of temptations we receive here, along with how those trials are used to see if we are the real deal:
………………………………………………………………………………………
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
………………………………………………………………………………………
Here is the same general statement written by the Apostle Paul?

………………………………………………………………………………………
1 Corinthians 3
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
………………………………………………………………………………………
If so, that passage is figurative in relation to fire. I can say that because the term “foundation” is also used in a figurative sense immediately before that:

Here is the entire context:
………………………………………………………………………………………

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
………………………………………………………………………………………
That passage doe not give credence to purgatory in any way.

Here is another passage from the Apostle Paul:
………………………………………………………………………………………
Let me know if I have used the wrong verses altogether, because it hardly seems that you’d be referring to these as an argument for purgatory.

[Aquinasfan]

Well of course God doesn't act in vain. I doubt any of the Fathers ever said anything like that. On the other hand, do you think that God acted in vain if a created being does not attain theosis?

No, because the reprobate creature damns himself while still mysteriously serving God's purpose of promoting the good of all of Creation. Additionally, the reprobate creature always remains good in his essence. Even the devil's essence, i.e., what he is, is good, as is his existence considered in and of itself. So it seems just that God would not annihilate the devil (destroying His own good creation), but rather allow him to exist for eternity apart from God, which was the devil's choice. This solution upholds the goodness of God's creative act and also God's justice.

Theosis, after all, is our created purpose, is it not? If we fail to attain theosis, does this say anything about God? Of course not. And if we are condemned, is it God who condemns us,

We condemn ourselves. I agree.

whether that condemnation is an eternity of death or torment in hell or simply spiritual annihilation? Of course not.

I think that there is a great and important distinction between eternal torment in hell and annihilation, for the reasons mentioned above.

You say that everything created by God is good. Clearly. But God is not the author of sin nor of the consequences of sin; we are. As +John Chrysostoms teaches, "God created without matter.", ex nihilo. So it is of course beyond argument that all "Life" is from God. +John Damascene teaches in Book 1 Chap VIII of the Exact Exposition:

Thereafter at Book 1, Chap XIV, he writes:

"...For it could destroy the universe but it does not will so to do."

This is the relevant point. God does not owe us existence. God is sufficient unto Himself and did not need to create anything. But Good is diffusive, and God freely chose to create the universe.

So it seems to me that annihilation of creatures who God created in the image of God would represent a reversal, or contradiction, of His will, which is impossible.

I couldn't find anything in the Summa regarding the impossibility of the annihilation of the damned, but the idea seems to be reinforced by Scripture.

"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

I think the situation is analogous to merit. We don't merit our heavenly reward per se. God honors His own promise to us to reward our good works in Heaven. But our good works are nothing more than God working through us. While the just can be sure of a heavenly reward, it is not because of some claim of justice over and against God. So it is with the notion of the annihilation of the damned. God honors His own will.

So, AF, if we cut ourselves off from the source of being, what happens to our being?

We do not possess being or existence by nature. Our existence is a participation in God's existence or being. Nevertheless, by the fact that the damned exist and retain their human nature, they must participate in God's being in some very attenuated way (in the sense of a First Cause).

[Aquinasfan]

Actually, there was no absolutely, dogmatized formal Catholic canon at the time of Luther. There was very broad consenses that the OT canon should be the Septuagint canon, but that had never been dogmatized. No one thought it needed to be dogmatized--everyone knew that the Septuagint was the proper OT canon--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Though it had never been dogmatized, dogmatic Catholic pronouncements had been made on the consensus belief that the Septuagint canon was the true canon.

True. The canon had been effectively set by several Church Councils around the year 400 A.D., although these weren't true ecumenical councils.

Nevertheless, the problem for Luther and his doctrine remains. By what authority could Luther edit his Bible when his doctrine recognized no authority (aside from God) superior to the Bible?

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

Hound, I completely agree with you. Some absolutists around here would say non-monotheists are going to hell because they "heard about" Christianity and refused to convert to it. Human nature doesn't work that way.

[Aquinasfan]

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

True.

[Romish_Papist]

Try the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It gives you chapter and verse for everything you just asked about.

[Romish_Papist]

Addendum: You can even read it online at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

[SoothingDave]

You are the one who placed the word "baptism" in your interpretive parenthesis. The context in John 3 is obviously the water of the mother's womb, not a church's baptistry.

Obviously.

I mean, it couldn't be that your own prejudice colors the way you look at this verse.

Of course, your interpretation means that the unborn go to hell because they are never born of water.

SD

[Romish_Papist]

"Evangelical Anglican Protestant"

Protestant denomination #30,001. Next?

[adiaireton8]

Many people can't see something as LITERAL if it is not PHYSICAL.

I don't have a problem with a claim or statement being literal and also not about something physical. For example, "The Holy Spirit exists" is literally true, and yet it is not about something physical. When, however, someone claims that a statement is literally true, and then denies the literal sense of the statement, that's a problem. Christ's blood is physical. But you say, "At no time has my body been physically washed with blood". And then you claim that we must literally be washed in the blood of Christ to be saved. Well, if we must literally be washed in Christ's blood, and you have never literally been physically washed with physical blood, then from your premises it would follow that you are not saved. Do you think that Christ has non-physical blood, and is that what you think you were washed with?

-A8

[Romish_Papist]

There is nothing "obvious" about that. Christ said water, and we know He Himself was baptised with water. If He meant "mother's womb" then He would have said one needed to be born of a woman and of the Holy Spirit. Why would he be vague (water being a very, very vague reference to a mother's womb) and then perfectly specific (the Holy Spirit being just that and not a symbol for something else as you imply "water" to be)?

[BearCub]

I know my Bible just fine, though I'm no scholar to be sure.

There is certainly no clear mention of it - just vague passages like those found in 2Mac and 1Cor.

The idea of purgatory is bound up with the Catholic concept that penance is required to atone for sins and that upon leaving this life with sins unreconciled, an 'intermediate fire' is required to purify and prepare one for heaven.

That all sounds just fine if you agree that Christ's death was not sufficient to absolve Christians of their sin. Personally, I prefer not to minimize His sacrifice in this way.

Buy hey, believe what you want. There is nothing about either argument that would take one outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy (i.e., this is an argument that while academically interesting, doesn't really matter in the grand scheme).

-bc