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 .

[Free Baptist]

The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Ro. 3:25; Ro. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12-14).
(Please note: this refers to a belief in salvation by grace alone [Sola Gratia], through faith in the Blood of Christ alone [Sola Fide] - Ro. 3:25 states that God has set forth Jesus to be a propitiation through faith in His Blood; Ro. 5:9 states that we are justified by Christ's Blood; and Eph. 1:7 states that we have redemption through His blood - see also Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:12-14).

[Free Baptist]

Romans 5:8-9 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

The Bible clearly states in v.9 of Rm.5 that we are justified by His blood, not His death! To be justified is to be aquited from all guilt and crimes.

This is the sense in which we are LITERALLY washed -- JUSTIFIED (aquited and forgiven).

Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

This FORGIVENESS is the sense of being LITERALLY washed.

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

LITERALLY made meet, suited, though deserving of Hell, no longer under judgment, is the sense in which we are LITERALLY washed.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Redeemed and forgiven LITERALLY. This is the sense of being LITERALLY washed.

Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to *reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

It is God, HIMSELF, Who made peace, as by virtue of Christ's Blood He is expiated and propitiated. He looks at us as CLEAN, and He is JUST in seeing us so LITERALLY washed.

*To reconcile to is to call back into union and friendship the affections which have been alienated;


Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Many time that the Bible tells us that we have redemption in His blood: Rom. 3:24, Eph. 1:7, Col. 14, Heb. 9:12, 1Pet. 1:18-19, Rev. 5:9

Redemption is not for us to do anything (no ordinances or sacraments could ever accomplish it) because Christ, Himself, OBTAINED eternal redemtion FOR US. It was was done deal, and accomplished work when Jesus entered into the Holy Place, the presence of His Father with His own Blood. God smelled the sweet smelling savor of Christ (Eph. 5:2) and was fully expiated, satisfied that our sins were PAID FOR, WASHED AWAY.

This is appropriated by FAITH (Romans 5:1-8) and the believer sees that he or she is LITERALLY washed by THE OPERATION OF GOD (Colossians 2:8-12).

NOT a physical washing of our physical flesh, but LITERALLY washed nonetheless.

[Aquinasfan]

And it was Hillel who said: ""Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it."

Thanks! Isn't this phrase in one of the deuterocanonical books as well?

[Aquinasfan]

Suppose for a moment that the soul is not, by nature, immortal and that its only chance for immortality is to be united with the only "naturally immortal" One, God.

We can know the immortality of the soul by unaided reason. The reason why the soul is immortal is because God has made the soul immortal. The annihilation of the soul would then represent a miraculous act of destruction, something that seems contrary to God's nature as Creator.

If we in the exercise of free will determine to reject God's grace (I previously used the words "cut off")then we will not become like God. Without theosis, we cannot be "with" God after physical death.

True.

Wouldn't this mean the death of the soul also?

Not necessarily. Putting aside the philosophical arguments for a moment, consider the fact that we have divine revelation indicating the opposite. We know that the devil and the demons exist even though they have been thrown out of heaven. The fallen angels are simple spiritual substances as are our souls, yet the fallen angels have not ceased to exist.

+Athanasius the Great taught that without the soul, the body is nothing and without the body, the soul can do nothing.

It seems that St. Thomas agrees. He does say that it is possible for the soul to receive knowledge when separate from the body, but I assume that such knowledge would have to be infused.

It would follow that theosis must be obtained in some fashion and at least to some extent while here in this life since there is nothing the soul itself can do after the body dies to repent or advance in theosis.

True.

[Aquinasfan]

Pure act? What does that mean?

Potency and act are Aristotelian terms. They're tied into his solution of "the problem of change."

It's a nice phrase -- "pure," something wholesome and uncontaminated like God, and "act," something we associate with power -- but what do the two words mean together?

Very briefly, unlike all other things God's nature is being, with no admixture of potential or potency.

This conforms with Scripture, where He reveals His name, "I AM WHO AM."

And doesn't the term "will" imply or presume some decision-making capabilities?

Not necessarily. God's will is simple, eternal, and fixed.

Is the Will of God changeable?

On the contrary, It is said: "God is not as a man, that He should lie, nor as the son of man, that He should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).

I answer that, The will of God is entirely unchangeable. On this point we must consider that to change the will is one thing; to will that certain things should be changed is another. It is possible to will a thing to be done now, and its contrary afterwards; and yet for the will to remain permanently the same: whereas the will would be changed, if one should begin to will what before he had not willed; or cease to will what he had willed before. This cannot happen, unless we presuppose change either in the knowledge or in the disposition of the substance of the willer. For since the will regards good, a man may in two ways begin to will a thing. In one way when that thing begins to be good for him, and this does not take place without a change in him. Thus when the cold weather begins, it becomes good to sit by the fire; though it was not so before. In another way when he knows for the first time that a thing is good for him, though he did not know it before; hence we take counsel in order to know what is good for us. Now it has already been shown that both the substance of God and His knowledge are entirely unchangeable (9, 1; 14, 15). Therefore His will must be entirely unchangeable.

If God does not "decide" anything because there is no before or after for him, how does he "do" anything? Doesn't action, like deliberation, require time?

God is pure "do," or "act." We see the effects of God's simple will unfolding in time in Creation.

Objection 4. Further, God does not will of necessity what He wills, as said before (3). Therefore He can both will and not will the same thing. But whatever can incline to either of two opposites, is changeable substantially; and that which can exist in a place or not in that place, is changeable locally. Therefore God is changeable as regards His will.

Reply to Objection 4. Although God's willing a thing is not by absolute necessity, yet it is necessary by supposition, on account of the unchangeableness of the divine will, as has been said above (3).

Kierkegaard was right. The only appropriate response to questions regarding the mystery of God is silence.

How does Kierkegaard know? Does he know all that can be known about God? If not, then he has no basis for making such a statement. If he does know all that can be known about God, he contradicts himself.

Kierkegaard is wrong. We can know some things about the nature of God a posteriori, by his effects.

Is the existence of God demonstrable?

Throughout the ages, academicians sought to establish themselves as great thinkers, capable of divining the very essence of God, by using reason and constructing with words the answers to unsolvable questions. "Look at me, I've used reason to figure out what God is." To even suggest that one has is ridiculous and tells us more about what the writer thinks of himself than anything about what God is.

I have suggested that, so it should be easy to refute these ridiculous arguments. Be my guest.

God is a paradox.

How?

Any knowledge of "it" is inaccessible through reason.

How do you know?

Can you refute any of St. Thomas' arguments?

Does God exist?

Once you put it into words, you destroy the very knowledge you have sought to acquire.

How?

Buddhists, by and large, understand this and gain knowledge of some aspects of reality through meditation, the results of which remain unspoken.

How do you know that they have knowledge of some aspects of reality if they remain unspoken? How was this knowledge communicated to you?

(It makes complete sense to answer a question about the nature of God by asking another question, as asking the qestions is all you can do.)

How do you know? Do you know all that can be known about God? How did you get this knowledge?

OTOH, St. Thomas makes arguments regarding the nature of God that can't be contradicted by reason. If you know of some other method of contradiction aside from reason and speech, you will not be able to communicate it to anyone else.

"Pure act" is mental masturbation designed by self-described pious men who sought to have others think highly of them. It gets us no closer to understanding the nature of God than if we said that God was green cheese.

How can you make such a remark when you don't know the meaning of the Aristotelian terms? It seems to me that you are coming into this with some strongly held fideistic beliefs.

[Aquinasfan]

Perhaps it is so that we cannot reason our way to accurate knowledge about God.

It does not follow, however, that God cannot simply REVEAL such knowledge, and understanding of it to us. I do not mean "some limiting understanding of it either", for that presumes to limit God. If God wants us to understand the whole thing, he is certainly capable of doing that, in an instant.

Do we know this by reason? See the contradiction?

We can know things about the nature of God through reason (and by revelation). Your latter statement is correct.

Indeed, the notion conforms with God's revelation:

Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

[Romish_Papist]

Much obliged sir, gotta update them actually.

You can see more if you'd like here:

www.red-december.net/madhatter/

All the photo's on the pages therein are mine.

[SoothingDave]

An unborn child cannot receive water baptism either. Unborn babies, and children before they have the capacity to reason that they need redemption, along with severely mentally handicapped people who also cannot reason or respond to conscience in the matter of offense against God's holiness are not accountable. Where there can be no knowledge of sin, there is no accountability.

So Jesus says that one must be born of water and the Spirit for salvation. And you claim "water" refers to fluids in the amniotic sac. "Obviously."

When it is pointed out that not all souls experience birth or an amniotic fluid, therefore your reading means they can not attain salvation, you wave your hands and dismiss your own argument.

So, if I am following you, Jesus said one must be born of water, meaning natural birth or at least swimming in an amniotic sac. But you say otherwise, that salvation is guaranteed until one attains an age of reason.

So why did Jesus say something that is untrue?

SD

[SoothingDave]

I take it from you then, that it really doesn't matter, because there is always a way to get around any rules in your system anyway..."normally we do this, but...anyone can...

That's not "getting around" the rules. Those are the rules. I'm sorry your own cynicism keeps you from seeing this very thing. The point is that you are wrong on this item.

You publicly trumpet an untrue thing, and then react with cynicism when your own error and ignorance is pointed out. If you are ignorant of this, what else about Catholicism do you imagine you understand, when you really don't?

An intellectually curious person would wonder.

But water is still not a replacement for Blood. Water does not become Blood. Water does not represent Blood.

You are arguing, it seems, with formulations of your own devising. Let us know if you'd like a sparring partner.

SD

[reelfoot]

"Nicodemus understood the water of John 3, and Jesus never corrected his image. Nick asked, Can [a man] enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (v. 4) Yep, the context of water there is the mother's womb. But you MUST not see that, because it gives the authority to the Scriptures and not to your clergy."

I respect your opinion on this being a reference to amniotic fluid but tend to believe it to be a reference of water baptism as did Luther: "here Christ is speaking of Baptism of real and natural water such as a cow might drink . . . ." I think Titus 3:5 fits well with John 3:5 in this regard.

"The Church of Christ of Alexander Campbell does the same things:

"1. They insist that water baptism is necessary to the soul's salvation."

I have been a member of the churches of Christ for 40 years. Yes, we teach that a number of biblical passages connect baptism and salvation.

"2. But that's not good enough, lest they have to admit that Baptists who practice water baptism are saved."

I don't know what you mean by this. I've worshipped in several congregations of the churches of Christ in the last few decades and don't have a clue of what you're talking about. Perhaps you have heard different teachings at your attendance at some of our congregations than I have heard.

"3. No, the only water baptism that is effectual is that performed under their church by their 'elders.'"

I have never heard this taught or preached in churches of Christ. Usually a preacher will conduct the baptism. Occasionally an elder will. Sometimes it is one of the men in the congregation that holds no church office. I have never heard it taught in any congregation of churches of Christ that the effectiveness of baptism depends upon the one doing the immersing.

"4.They claim to be the true primitive church that Jesus Built (Matt. 16), and therefore to them, only their members are saved, and their church is the only legitimate one."

We strive to adhere to the teachings of the New Testament without adding man made doctrines and creeds, whether they are handed down by a pope, a convention, or other ecclesiastical body. We try to avoid setting aside the commandments of God to follow the doctrines of men. As to thinking that "only their members are saved", I do not hear that taught in our congregations. I can't vouch for other members; certainly in a large body, some may hold to such a view. But when I have heard the old joke about a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, and an Methodist meeting St. Peter at the heavenly gates, and Peter urges them to be quite, and they ask "Why", the punch line I have heard is "So the Baptists won't hear you. They think they're the only ones here."

"5. And if you nail their "elders" down on this...I mean IF you can get them in a corner to admit what they believe, they will tell you that you come into contact with the Blood of Jesus IN THE WATER, or the water somehow turns into blood."

Methinks you're getting some bad advice from someone, perhaps from a Baptist deacon or preacher. I have never heard anyone in the churches of Christ say that baptismal water somehow turns into blood, anymore than I have heard it taught that the elements of the Lord's Supper becomes real flesh and blood. We do teach that in a figurative sense, a repentant and believing person contacts the blood of Christ in the waters of baptism, as we believe such to be taught in Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc., etc. I also notice that you put "elders" in quotation marks. There are several passages in the New Testament about this church office; why the quotes?

I'm sure we will disagree about these issues, though you can know that I won't purport to judge you on them. The scriptures will judge all of us. I'm content with that. You may, however, wish to get more accurate information in the future before telling others what another group believes.

[Matchett-PI]

"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.."

Scripture:

Rom 9:11 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth..."

There are only TWO religions.

[job]

Being born of water could have spoken of the physical birth . . . being born of water. Christ told Nicodemus he must be born again. Nicodemus asked how is this possible, a man cannot re-enter his mother's womb. Christ answered by explaining He was talking about a spiritual birth.

[SoothingDave]

Being born of water could have spoken of the physical birth . . . being born of water.

I suppose He could have, if you believe He often said things that are superfluous. Telling a person who has obviously already been born that he must be born is less then pointless.

What person who ever read that message was never born?

The only implication of this particular reading of this passage is that Jesus is somehow demarcating the unborn for special treatment. In this case, that means they can never attain salvation.

So, to sum up, Jesus was either saying something pointless (telling people they must be born) or something horrendous (excluding the unborn who die from salvation).

SD

[Chili Girl]

Purgatory is not a word in the bible. How can it be biblical? (using KJV bible)

[job]

How can Baptism on an infant restore the infant's soul? The infant has no say in the Baptism; he/she does not even recognize what is happening. The Baptism occurs only because the parents choose to baptize the child. So, you are saying that a soul can be restored as a result of someone else's actions other than the soul's own choice? How is that different than the Mormons praying people's soul out of hell?

There is a verse where God tells Isaiah? "I knew you before you were in the womb." God knows our souls before we come to Earth to be born physically. I don't buy that an infant has never been in the presence of God, certainly his soul has been.

[adiaireton8]

A literal washing through (i.e. on account of) His blood is not the same as a literal washing in His blood. You keep saying the latter, but I think you mean the former. We are literally but spiritually washed/cleansed on account of the blood of Christ, by grace, through faith, in the physical means of grace.

-A8

[SoothingDave]

How can Baptism on an infant restore the infant's soul?

Because God is the Actor. Baptism is how He decided to impart His grace.

The infant has no say in the Baptism; he/she does not even recognize what is happening.

Exactly. What is a more powerful testimony to the unmerited favor of God that salvation is? What did the child do to merit this wonderful, inestimable gift?

Nothing.

So, you are saying that a soul can be restored as a result of someone else's actions other than the soul's own choice?

Again, God is the Actor here. God acts through the priest or celebrant in order to effect the sacrament.

How is that different than the Mormons praying people's soul out of hell?

I don't know if Mormons do that, and I don't really see the relevance. Is salvation a gift from God, or is it something you have to do?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Purgatory is not a word in the bible. How can it be biblical? (using KJV bible)

Trinity is not a word in the Bible. I guess you don't believe in that either.

SD

[job]

suppose He could have, if you believe He often said things that are superfluous. Telling a person who has obviously already been born that he must be born is less then pointless.

What person who ever read that message was never born?

The only implication of this particular reading of this passage is that Jesus is somehow demarcating the unborn for special treatment. In this case, that means they can never attain salvation.

So, to sum up, Jesus was either saying something pointless (telling people they must be born) or something horrendous (excluding the unborn who die from salvation).

>>>>

Jesus was telling Nicodemus he must be born again. Nicodemus replied by stating that you can't be born again, that once born, you cannot go back into the womb. Jesus then replied by stating that the second birth was spiritual birth; born of water, the first time (a physicial birth), and born of the spirit, the second time (a spiritual birth).

[job]

How can Baptism on an infant restore the infant's soul?
Because God is the Actor. Baptism is how He decided to impart His grace.

The infant has no say in the Baptism; he/she does not even recognize what is happening.

Exactly. What is a more powerful testimony to the unmerited favor of God that salvation is? What did the child do to merit this wonderful, inestimable gift?

Nothing.

So, you are saying that a soul can be restored as a result of someone else's actions other than the soul's own choice?

Again, God is the Actor here. God acts through the priest or celebrant in order to effect the sacrament.

How is that different than the Mormons praying people's soul out of hell?

I don't know if Mormons do that, and I don't really see the relevance. Is salvation a gift from God, or is it something you have to do?

>>>>

Well, that might make sense if God actually picked the child up and drove them to the church for the christening. But he doesn't. And so, there are a lot of infants that don't have a parent take them to get baptized as an infant. So, in your world, God covers only those infants who belong to a denomination that baptizes infants. If your an infant, and don't have anyone take you to get baptized, you're out of luck.

It does not work that way.