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 .
Just to clariry, purgatory is a temporary state of purgation. The souls in purgatory will eventually reach heaven.
The limbo of the infants, OTOH, is a very complex subject.
Your premise isn't biblical. Some valid Christian doctrines are passed on "by word of mouth."
2 Thessalonians 2:15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
It's got nothing to do with the sufficiency of Christ's blood. This is a typical statement made by those who do not understand the distinction between a who and a how. All Christians believe it is Christ Who absolves us of our sins. Purgation (penance, sacraments, works of mercy, etc.) is an explanation of how this happens. How the merits Christ earned on the Cross are made efficacious on our souls.
It's like saying if we believe in a hose, we therefore don't believe water is sufficient for bathing.
SD
Would that be the same Christ who saved the unbaptised thief on the cross?
Baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient to obtain salvation. It is an outward expression of one's conversion.
Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397)This was a local, and not a true ecumenical council, but the same canon was promulgated in the local councils of Hippo and Carthage again. And this canon was never altered by the Church thereafter. Trent formally dogmatized this canon which had been in constant use and universally recognized for the previous 1100 years.Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.(d)
I do understand the difference between 'a who and a how' and it has everything to do with the sufficiency of Christ's blood.
I believe the 'who' is Christ, the 'how' is His suffering and death. We simply disagree on the 'how'.
FYI, St. Thomas taught that they were ignorant of their loss.
I believe the 'who' is Christ, the 'how' is His suffering and death. We simply disagree on the 'how'.
No, you are not seeing the whole picture. You do not take into account at all the application of Christ's Sacrifice to our individual souls.
Are you a perfected human now? Have you always been? Are you going to be the same person with sinful impulses you are now when you get to Heaven? Or are you going to be changed?
If you believe, as we do, that we are in the process of being truly perfected, then it is obvious that the story does not end on Calvary. Calvary provides the necessary grace to bring about change in our souls. True change, not God pretending we are worthy when we are not. God will make us worthy, but this plays out in time, by applying Christ's merits to our souls.
SD
Matthew 23:1-3Indeed, Paul's letters flat out instruct his churches to follow the traditions he taught them. Tradition is GOOD, in Scripture, if it's proper apostolic tradition.Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Acts 23:4-6
Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?"
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' (Ex 22:28)"
Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.
2 Thessalonians 2:15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
I agree with you. And further, if I may, I think religion as a whole is very subjective. The Bible has been cut and pasted, changed, revised, reworded, etc., to suit people since its inception. There are different versions, and people/religions pick and choose their beliefs based on Biblical teachings (drinking, dancing, how one is "saved"...). What is truth? And yes, how can one look at an infant and think its soul is in need of cleansing? It's all very confusing, and while I very much appreciate Freepers comments on the subject of limbo, more questions follow, leaving me more confused.
It's not that the infant's soul is dirty, it's that it is born lacking something. That "something" is the gift of sharing in the divine life.
That is what "Original Sin" is. It is a lack of grace, a lack of the divine spark within. Baptism restores this and places us in fellowship with God.
Doesn't that make more sense than fixating on the word "sin" in "original sin" and trying to imagine what sin the infant is guilty of?
SD
Then why is the Great Commission to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," and not, "go and distribute Bibles that don't include the New Testament (which hasn't been defined or even fully written yet) which we won't be able to print up for another 1400 years"?
Maybe because "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)
But the infant was created by God, so how can it need anything else? And if it dies without baptism, it still, presumably, goes to heaven...so where is the cut-off point for getting into heaven without baptism? After birth? 1? 2? After that, does the chance for heaven after death expire? These questions are more general than specific related to you, Dave. I'm just confused and my Catholic background muddles things more. Oh, and I'm 6 months pregnant, so, go figure.
Adam and Eve were created lacking nothing. They messed it up and it is this deprived nature we inherit.
And if it dies without baptism, it still, presumably, goes to heaven
Presumably. It is hard to fathom damnation for such a one, that is for sure.
...so where is the cut-off point for getting into heaven without baptism? After birth? 1? 2?
You've never heard of an age of reason? When a child is capable of understanding right from wrong and is capable of choosing to do wrong. This is not the instinctive actions of a toddler or infant. But the reasoned actions of a child older.
It is at this point that a child can sin -- therefore it is at this point that personal sin damns them.
After that, does the chance for heaven after death expire?
If one dies in a state of grace, one attains Heaven. If one dies with unrepentant mortal sin on ones soul, one would meet another fate. Once a person can understand and choose good or evil, one's fate rests with one's choices.
This is why we have Confession, to restore the soul after repenting of sin.
These questions are more general than specific related to you, Dave. I'm just confused and my Catholic background muddles things more. Oh, and I'm 6 months pregnant, so, go figure.
That I can explain. LOL
SD
"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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you, I am probably a disgrace to the Baptist church but I had intended to post the same reply myself, I learned long ago that "born of water" did not refer to baptism. It means much more coming from you.
I probably should restrain myself from posting anything regarding religion but I can't help going into convulsions when people claim to know what God does with precious infants who die without being baptized. If I beleived, as some seem to, that he consigns them to Hell I would become a raving lunatic and be locked in a cell somewhere and if I knew all of the intentions of the creator, as some seem to claim, then I would be a God myself and obviously I am not.
Once again, Thank You.
We go mad. :)
Because we can't really cut ourselves off from that source. If we could, we wouldn't exist anymore.
The madness of the devils is to hate the very God that keeps them in existence.
Oh you're absolutely right as far as I'm concerned. :)
Look at it this way. Fish were created by God, yet they do not have the capacity of man in terms of reason. Trees were created by God, yet they do not have the capacity of sense.
We ourselves lack much because we do not have all the characteristics of the angels, or even God Himself. All creation is by nature imperfection, because it lacks the totality of God.
Thus, even though we were created by God, we still *need* grace to attain supernatural life. It is super + natural, i.e. above our nature.
Just so!
We agree completely.
Thank you for the specific cites.
One mistake that gets made pretty routinely among many is to confuse Pharisees and scribes with Jewish Priests of the Temple. The priests were consecrated, sacred priests of God's true temple. They did not exercise the Jewish rites, which were prescribed by God, as impostors. A priest of the Temple was God's anointed priest in the same sense that a priest today is God's anointed priest, and the High Priest of the Temple was God's anointed High Priest, in precisely the sense that the Pope today is God's anointed high priests. In their sacerdotal office, the priests of the Jewish Temple performed the only legitimate sacrifices that Jews could make to God, and were the only people on earth consecrated to do it. The Apostles did NOT have the right to stride up to the altar in the Temple and perform the sacrifices. For them to have done it would have been a sacrilege against God himself. They were apostles, but they were NOT anointed sacerdotal priests. That is important. The High Priest and the priests of the Temple were NOT impostors. They were the ONLY anointed priests of God on earth, at the time, and the Apostles did not have their authority, while Jesus lived. Jesus is a special case, obviously, be even HE demanded that the Temple tax be paid for himself, and he sent people to the Temple to make the appropriate sacrifices. The Temple Sacrifices WERE REAL SACRAMENTS, then. (Note how God eliminated the Temple utterly from the Earth, so that there is no competition in His priesthood.)
Pharisaism was a religious/political philosophical movements, which, alongside the Essene movement and the Sadducean movement, were the primary intellectual divisions among the Jews. To be a Pharisee was not an office. It was like being a Republican. A scribe was, well, a scribe: educated, learned, and perhaps even a rabbi (teacher). But a Pharisee was NOT a priest (although a priest MIGHT be a Pharisee). In truth, practically all of the priests, apparently, were of the Sadducee party during Jesus' life, although that can only be speculated at, and it wasn't a PARTY in any organized sense anyway - more like a "school of thought" is better.
A scribe was not a priest.
A rabbi was not a priest.
The composition of the Sanhedrin circa 34 AD is not entirely clear to us: there are not very many written records of the 1st Century, and we have to rely almost exclusively on Josephus ben Mattheas for practically all of the real detail we have of the organization of the Jews.
Anyway, we should keep things separate. Jesus did NOT condemn the Temple rites and sacrifices as empty and hollow. He did NOT condemn what the priests were doing as "tradition". He didn't condemn tradition as such. What he was aiming at was a set of Pharisaic beliefs and customs and practices. The Pharisees were in the ascendant, and were politically and socially powerful. But this did not affect the sacredness of the sacred offices of the Temple. Two different things. The priesthood were God's anointed. The Temple sacrifices were God's True Sacraments of the time (replaced by the Sacraments Jesus set up). It was not until Jesus' betrayal and death that the Priesthood and the Temple itself had its authority stripped of it from God.
God was still IN the Holy of Holies, until the moment of Jesus' death when the curtain ripped in twain.
This is important, because all of that priestly "stuff", all of those sacramental things that the Jews did, and that Catholics picked up (using comparable miters and pans and plates and robes of comparable colors and psalmistry and incense...all of those priestly practices of the Temple-become-the-Church: THAT was all sacred. God ordained those things in the Torah. Jesus changed the method of the sacraments, and instituted a replacement priesthood, but the priesthood of God and the sacraments of God remained, in different form.
When Jesus condemned traditions, he was certainly NOT referring to those things that were done within the Temple sanctuary, on the altar, etc. He was condemning the philosophies, laws and beliefs that went on all around outside of it, that asserted (often hypocritically) human opinion as God's opinion, frequently without following the intent of the laws that were handed down by God.
But to be clear, when Jesus was born, the presentation at the temple and sacrifice of turtledoves in offering for him was not a tradition of man, and optional, but a True Sacrament of God, by the only True Priests of God, and holy and mandatory. The burnt offerings were the Sacrament of Confession and of a sort of Communion.
The priests were real Priests.
The forms they practiced in those robes were of God, and true faith.
The ideas they had in their heads were the problems.
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.