Pope doing away with limbo

[tomdemaine]

So much for the imutable word of God. Now if he'd just do us all a big favour and get rid of hell I'd be much oblidged.

[KenProspero]

Remembering an old George Carlin routine -- I wonder what happens to all those babies who were in Limbo before the Pope did away with it .... I hope they get promoted.

[Peter666]

Holy crap, I am travelling and have not kept up to date on these doings for the last week. I thought this was a joke, but it is not.

There is a defined Catholic doctrine made by a previous Pope which condemns anyone who tries to do away with limbo. If Pope Benedict is serious, than this is proof that he is a heretic and essentially contradicting the doctrine of original sin.

[BluffTHIS!]

You need to get a copy of Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and read his explanation for the various levels of certainty regarding various doctrines. And it was published during your favorite decade of the 50's.

The concept of limbo has always been a theoretical one to explain where unbaptized infants might go. It has no basis in divine revelation. Which is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church says it places its "hope" in divine providence regarding their fate without trying to theorize about that fate when same has not been definitively revealed.

But hey Peter, since you are practically a protestant anyway, why not just adopt the Calvinist position that unbaptized infants are going to hell and not worry about all this limbo stuff?

[David Sklansky]

"But hey Peter, since you are practically a protestant anyway, why not just adopt the Calvinist position that unbaptized infants are going to hell and not worry about all this limbo stuff?"

Then how come he is the only one Not Ready is afraid to debate?

[BluffTHIS!]

Because protestant theology is full of internal logical contradictions and Peter has a good knowledge of catholic vs. protestant apologetics and logic to pwn NR. And if you go back through my "Question for Protestants" and "What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get" threads as well as posts in other threads, you will find plenty of examples of NR getting backed into a logical corner by myself and saying something like "I didn't read the rest of your post, maybe tomorrow" and not coming back to it or just not responding at all. So he really isn't debating me fully either, although he doesn't like my sarcastic tone sometimes and that probably furnishes him with an excuse not to respond to something he couldn't rebut anyway.

Now I am of course exaggerating somewhat by calling Peter protestant when he belongs to a dissident sect of catholicism, although I think pegging him as similar to a High Church Anglican is appropriate. And he has a similar absorption with "details" like NR, although he uses them to turn minor theological points into major ones through miscontruing the words of the current catechism and trying to make liturgical details into doctrines, in order to justify refusal of submission to the pope and the teachings of the college of bishops.

[Peter666]

You have made two errors regarding my theology. The first was made in the previous thread regarding the modernist Catechism when you accused me of lack of charity for not going along with your personal interpretation of the Gospels. As a Catholic, we are bound by dogmatic and doctrinal conclusions which I held to. Your personal interpretation of the Gospels and judging of charity is the true sign of Protestantism, for it acts without an objective infallible authority. In fact, you constantly criticize Not Ready for this, but when confronted with it yourself, you take a Protestant approach.

The second error is in what you interpret my position on Limbo to be. First, I have read Ott and am very familiar with Catholic dogma, doctrine and various degrees of theological certainty thank you very much. I never said that Limbo is a dogma or doctrine. It is a theological opinion based on Logic. The 17th century Pope who condemned those condemning Limbo did not define an actual Limbo, but protected the logical validity of those views. The debate in the past was whether the unbaptized go to Hell or Limbo, not whether they have the chance of going to Heaven.

What Pope Benedict has now done is say that there is no Limbo like place to begin with, so that means that the unbaptized either go to Heaven or the Hell. Of course, this contradicts St. Thomas Aquinas, myriads of theologicans and the education of Catholics for the last few centuries.

So what is Pope Benedict really saying? That the unbaptized go to Heaven, thus contradicting the Dogma of necessity of Baptism and Original Sin, or is he saying the unbaptized go straight to Hell?

[BluffTHIS!]

Peter, I think you are again misinterpreting the Holy Father's views and drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. You are right that limbo is a logically possible theory, but the Holy Father isn't saying otherwise, just that we don't need to try to theorize about such a "detail" to the point of having it in the catechism. And from that position, you cannot validly infer that he means that unbaptized babies must go to heaven. But of course you aren't actually stating that you infer that, but by asking the question just erecting another hypothetical heretical straw man, like you have said JPII was "suspected" of heresy.

And it is humorous for you to accuse me of "personal" interpretations when I merely state the teachings of the Magisterium with its 3000+ bishops in communion with the pope. Whereas you are asserting the personal interpretations of 4 bishops and 50 priests who are not in communion with the pope. If the pope agreed with your group's views, as small as it is, then you could state that it was standing against the theologically wrong majority. But the key point of the Arian heresy which you like to allude to, is that the see of Rome never succumbed to it even when a majority of the bishops may have. That is a critical difference.

[tek]

It's a marketing ploy to get new recruits. Remember the marketing drive to recruit pagans where they agreed to move the sabbath to sundays... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Peter666]

Everything I say I have backed up with Church teaching. You claim to represent the 2000 year Magisterium when the current Magisterium is contradicting the previous one.

Now that Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) has decided to cow tow to the modernists in offering a more "compassionate" view of the fate of unbaptized infants, he is scandalizing every single Catholic who has ever been taught about the concept of limbo, and he is contradicting the premier theological authority of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas. So is Ratzinger right?

If we can hope for the eternal salvation of the unbaptized, we can certainly hope for the eternal salvation of mortal sinners for "compassionate" reasons. After all, why would an all loving God condemn a sinner to an eternity of Hell? Why would he not allow unbaptized babies to see the Beatific vision (even though he allows them to die in sometimes cruel ways).

So what now? Do we erase the part of the Catechisms approved by the Church which discuss limbo? Do we ignore ST. Thomas Aquinas and the interesting historical context of this question? Do we ignore the Catholic Encyclopedia?

But now I demand an answer to this, and you can ask the Pope. Where do unbaptized babies go when they die?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But now I demand an answer to this, and you can ask the Pope. Where do unbaptized babies go when they die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother? He doesn't know any better than you or me.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You claim to represent the 2000 year Magisterium when the current Magisterium is contradicting the previous one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you see distinctions here is because you are view God's church in historical slices, and fail to see that the magisterial teaching of church and the church itself form an historical integral whole. You can't see the forst for the trees.

[ QUOTE ]
and he is contradicting the premier theological authority of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas. So is Ratzinger right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that you are spending all this time arguing over theological speculation? This is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin stuff. And yet from such arguements over speculative possibilities you fashion a whole speculative theological world where heresy is around every corner.

The words of St. Paul are very appropriate to these types of bogus disagreements.

[Peter666]

No, this goes much further than theological speculation due to the consequences of the new thinking. If there is no middle ground for the unbaptized infants to go to after death, than infants must either go to Heaven or Hell. There is no where else. So now that the modernist theologians and the Pope who is appeasing them have gotten rid of the middle ground, I again have to ask: Where do unbaptized babies go when they die?

It would be funny to hear that they go to Hell and thus maintain the Augustinian view thus backfiring on all the modernist theologians and their need for "compassion". God knows the unbaptized cannot go to Heaven because there is no way that a human born with the stain of original sin can have the possibility of salvation until reachng the age of reason.

If anyone maintains that that is possible, then they are really claiming universal salvation and denying Original Sin. Plus contradicting the 2000 year teachings of the Church on the necessity of Baptism for infants.

[Peter666]

This is true in a sense. The Pope does not have more magical powers than anyone else except in a very particular circumstance in defining dogma.

But as Pope, he should know what his Church teaches in regards to salvation, particularly the fact that Baptism is necessary for anyone to enter Heaven, and to hope for the salvation of infants, who by definition have not reached the age of reason, is heresy.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true in a sense. The Pope does not have more magical powers than anyone else except in a very particular circumstance in defining dogma.

But as Pope, he should know what his Church teaches in regards to salvation, particularly the fact that Baptism is necessary for anyone to enter Heaven, and to hope for the salvation of infants, who by definition have not reached the age of reason, is heresy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, where do you believe the unborn go? (You're Catholic, right?)

[BTirish]

I would suggest that everyone wait for the actual release of the document before jumping to any wild conclusions. Just as with the Instruction on the admission of homosexuals to the seminary, the media's ignorant characterization of the document and the actual content of the document may very well be rather different. If someone has actually seen a draft of the Commission's document and can correct me, please do so.

It is an error to assert the existence of Limbo with the same degree of certainty that one believes in the existence of Heaven and Hell. It is, as Peter has pointed out, a theological possibility inasmuch as it is a logical possibility.

There is a difference between ceasing to teach the existence of Limbo and definitively asserting the non-existence of Limbo. From all reports that I have seen, the new document will be suggesting the former rather than asserting the latter. Whether this is a prudent judgment remains to be debated, but as much as Limbo is itself a speculative hypothesis, this debate and the variety of opinions possible concerning it shouldn't trouble a faithful Catholic.

This document will be a product of a theological commission that is meant to advise the Pope and the magisterium. The document itself carries no weight. His Holiness did assert around 20 years ago that he, speaking not as the head of the CDF but as a theologian, would "drop" discussion of the theological hypothesis that is Limbo. Again, as I have said, there is a difference between dropping it from discussion and asserting that it is not a possibility.

One would think that someone who is familiar with Ott and who knows the various degrees of certainty attached to doctrinal propositions would also know the difference between a theological commission's documents and a magisterial pronouncement.

(There has been some confusion about exactly who will be publishing the document. It is the International Theological Commission, not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that has authored this document. I think the confusion has arisen because the head of the CDF, Archbishop Levada, is also the president of the ITC.)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone maintains that that is possible, then they are really claiming universal salvation and denying Original Sin. Plus contradicting the 2000 year teachings of the Church on the necessity of Baptism for infants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Peter,

How about the Holy Innocents? The Church has always held these babies are in heaven and to my knowledge they did not recieve baptism.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I am of course exaggerating somewhat by calling Peter protestant when he belongs to a dissident sect of catholicism.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it funny when you make that exaggeration. SSPX appears catholic while the Church post Vatican II appears protestant.

Stu

FWIW I go to a sede vacante church, but would not have a problem going to a SSPX service.

Can you all see that your religion is being made up as you go along?

You are witnessing the discussion of the invention of this limbo theory. Someone made it up on the basis of no facts because it answered a question they didnt have an answer to, and now someone else has said it is wrong. Neither seem to have any evidence.

Can you just for a second try to extrapalate and see that at some point heaven and hell were imagined as answers to impossible questions. Genesis descibes how some writer imagined the earth was created and it turns out he was wrong.

Can you not then extrapalate to realise that the God concept was probably a figment of someones imagination when trying to answer a difficult riddle?

No? okay nevermind.

[tomdemaine]

Thankyou for eloquently making the point that my bad joke was grasping for.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You are witnessing the discussion of the invention of this limbo theory. Someone made it up on the basis of no facts because it answered a question they didnt have an answer to, and now someone else has said it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Peter's point is that if one Pope defined something as being true 500 years ago, another Pope cannot undefine that because truth doesn't change.

Stu

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you all see that your religion is being made up as you go along? ...

Can you just for a second try to extrapalate and see that at some point heaven and hell were imagined as answers to impossible questions. Genesis descibes how some writer imagined the earth was created and it turns out he was wrong.

Can you not then extrapalate to realise that the God concept was probably a figment of someones imagination when trying to answer a difficult riddle?

No? okay nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, apparently I am not able to "extrapolate" invalid inferences any better than you are able to spell "extrapolate."

It does not follow from "there are debates among Catholics about the content and implications of God's revelation" that "all this is just a bunch of made up hooey." Precisely the fact that Catholics are attentive to the difference between that which is definitively part of the deposit of faith and that which is free ground for theological speculation speaks against your (naive and amateurish) suggestion.

[fluff]

Speaking of pointless religious debate, was it ever settled how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

If the pope does away with limbo, what happens to all the people already in limbo?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Pope doing away with limbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez, I thought the mennonites
were the only ones !
what's next, no Foxtrot ??!!

[Peter666]

The Holy Innocents received Baptism of Martyrdom, one of the three ways to get the grace of baptism: sacramentally through water, martyrdom, and desire.

Herod was trying to kill Jesus, and thus the Holy Innocents were killed for Christ's sake.

[Peter666]

I believe the unborn child (such as the fetus) who dies in the womb goes to a middle ground of limbo. A person is created upon conception, and thus instantly inherits the stain of original sin. If they die without baptism (such as a miscarriage) I believe their soul goes to a place of natural happiness. They cannot go to Heaven because they do not have supernatural grace, but they should not go to Hell because they did not commit any sins that deserve punishment.

What the modernist Catholics don't understand is the difference between natural happiness and supernatural happiness. Supernatural happiness or Heaven is something totally and completely unimaginable because it is a direct vision of God Himself as He sees himself. You need God's "eyes" to see him, as our natural eyes do not have the capacity to do so. That is why we require supernatural help, otherwise known as grace.

The dead unbaptized child is probably completely happy as human's envision happiness. This is likely a type of happiness found in the original Garden of Eden, or a place with 72 virgins....

There is no need to worry that the innocent people who die without Baptism are being hurt in any way. Their happiness is just a different and lower type of happiness than those people in Heaven.