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 .
2 Maccabees 12:43–45); Luke 12:59; 1 Cor 3:11-15; Phil. 1:6; Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32
I agree. See my #43.
LOL!!
I always loved that joke!
What so many people don't understand is that:
(1) limbo was never a "dogma," it was a speculation about a question that didn't seem to have a definitive answer. It was some theologians' way of saying, "Well, God is just, and this is what we think could be a just solution: eternal natural happiness of the innocent children."
(2) It implied no pain or punishment, but an eternal fulfillment of the childrens' natural capacities for satisfaction.
The idea was, they can't endure the Beatific Vision because they haven't been "born again," but simply as beings possessing a human nature, they could enjoy an eternity of natural joys.
It's a speculative idea, but not a bad idea.
It doesn't seem like anything to leave the Church about--- not if you understand that the Church was founded by Christ as a key part of His salvation plan for you and for the whole world.
Baptism DOES NOT SAVE ANYONE! The Word Of God makes it very plain that believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be save..
It is only at God's mercy that anyone is saved and we trust our Children to Him. WHO BETTER TO TRUST THEM TO?
Okay. I'll buy a link, but to what end?
How does moving to an oft-misunderstood theory to one that answers the question by saying no one knows for sure... how does that support their stance?
You're probably right, but please explain.
The church does not "confer" sainthood. When it "confers" sainthood as you say, it merely states as the Church that particular individual can be publically proclaimed a saint.
No. Not that I know of.
Trust me on this one, Purgatory exists. I spent 5 years there. it is run by my Ex-wife and monster-in-law.
That would make sense only if "pronouncements of various popes" were held by the Church to be infallible. But the Church has never taught that. The Pope is not an all-purpose oracle.
You're right, of course. But sometimes the debate over whether and how quickly some should be so recognized almost suggested that the person's status actually depended on the outcome of the canonization process.
I agree. I had a stillborn child - whom we named Benedict Joseph - and I have always been happy with the concept of Limbo. Reasonably speaking, it must exist, because God is a merciful God.
I apologize for doubleposting no. 54/56.
It is interesting to note that if this concept was put in place back in the 13th. century, it pre-dates the Catholic Church, since it happened before the Protestant split. Back then (in the 13th. century), it was simply known as "The Church" (the Eastern Churches may have had an opinion on this chracterization, but that would be the topic for another post in a different article!!).
I would not be surprised to learn that there are other non-Catholic "mainstream" Christian churches who have also held to a similar "limbo" concept over the past few hundred years. I have heard that this is true of "purgatory" (although it not referred to as such), so it may also be true of "limbo".
The Catholic church used Vatican II in the 1960's to "de-emphasize" a lot of these teachings - purgatory, limbo, the Communion of Saints, Mary, etc...., and place greater emphasis on Jesus Christ. Not a bad idea, but then the liberals hi-jacked Vatican II (I still haven't figured out how), and took the church in some really wacky directions.
Why then should we be baptized?
-A8
Ask a Protestant.
Time will tell.
In dropping the theological speculation about limbo Benedict XVI (at the time Cardinal Ratzinger) was not saying that it was erroneous, merely that it was poor theological speculation and was not necessary dogmatically. The Church never taught it anyway, so you are wrong on both counts: the Church is not abandoning something it taught (only what some theologians taught) and it is not saying that what is being abandoned was theologically error, merely theologically infelicitous.
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.