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?

[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.

[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... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[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.)