www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Pope revises limbo

Any thoughts from an Easten perspective on this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_limbo;_ylt=ArKKluJEMNZBFrje3RtmEX4DW7oF

O.K. - Another unnecessary, medieval RC concocted construct bites the dust?

Alex

I think that this is good. I have a problem with the idea of limbo and it is simply theological, not necessarily eastern or western. The problem with limbo is that it posits that there can be a state of natural happiness independent of the beatific vision. I see two problems with this:

1) Man is called to be in communion with God and to attain likeness to God. If unbaptized babies only obtain "natural happiness" then they fail in their vocation. "Natural happiness" is more a proper state for the non-human animals in paradise (prior to the fall) and possibly in the final Kingdom. But, surely, what our sons and daughters are called to is not the life of a dog or a cow in paradise, but intimate communion with God.

2) The distinction between natural happiness and supernatural beatitude suggests that somehow, nature could exist happilly without being infused with the divine presence. I would say (and maybe this is the eastern perspective) that there is no such thing as nature that is not destined to be transformed into the supernatural by grace. Man is to be deified and all of creation through man (See St. Paul's epistle to the Colossians and the writings of ST. Maximos the Confessor). In the end, God will be "all in all."

So, I understand why some medieval theologians invented the notion of limbo. But, I think the concept doesn't hold up to Scripture or Tradition. I would also add that it was invented to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the western theological tradition tended to inherit the notion that all beings are conceived in a state of damnation until being sanctified by baptism. Unborn children, from the moment of conception, were in a state of original sin (the Augustinian view). Since all stood condemned, then any who didn't receive baptism were damned, including those infants, miscarried babies, etc. who died without receiving baptism. There is at least one council (can't remember which one) of the western church that does say that all who die without baptism (without exception) go immediately into hell where they are punished for actual sins and for original sin, or for original sin only. Limbo was created as a way to mitigate this very harsh judgment. Interestingly enough, however, it is not clear that Limbo was always imagined to be a state of "natural happiness." St. Augustine holds that infants who die before baptism are punished in hell, but only mildly. Other theologians held that such persons were not punished with the fires of hell, but did suffer from eternal sadness due to the loss of the beatific vision. This seems to be what Dante has in mind in the Divine Comedy.

And I would add that I know that one can find passages in a few of the eastern fathers that suggest some kind of notion of limbo. But, I would say that since the Orthodox understanding is that we do not inherit Adam's sin as a personal fault, but rather we inherit mortality, then we are conceived and born into the world innocent until we commit actual sin. So, Orthodoxy has no need for such an idea as limbo.

Joe

Dear Joe,

However, mortality isn't all we inherit - we also inherit concupiscence and a darkened nature etc. We do indeed share in the consequences of Adam's fault, but our nature is not as drastically damaged as seen by the Cappadocian Fathers.

I would suggest that the reason why Limbo and even Purgatory are rejected by the East has more to do with Eastern Eschatology where, until the Second Coming of Christ when we will, once again, become a composite of soul and body, we are not assigned to permanent and distinct states in the after-life.

This is why the Greeks were utterly amazed at Florence that the Latins had developed the rather neat and distinct states of Limbo, Purgatory and the life prior to the Second Coming - they had not heard of that before and certainly rejected it forthwith.

It was only with the Scholastic period that certain Orthodox accepted BOTH purgatory and limbo and defended them, as Meyendorff discussed in his works (and I don't remember the references, sorry . . .).

Alex

Alex,

Very good points. Perhaps, inheriting mortality means inheriting the disordered nature that is produced by mortality? Thinking about it existentially, for the moment, I would borrow Heidegger's phrase, "Being toward death," and suggest that our being born into the world as "being toward death," comes with anxiety toward death. And that angst is the subtle source of our concupiscience and vanity. When our original parents were in a state of communion with God, they did not have this angst and so there was no drive to cling to things. Perhaps, lust is the desire to cling to this life due to the anxiety we feel toward death? That is why we all inevitably sin, even though we are not determined to sin.

Joe

My understanding of all of this is that this a recommendation to the Pope that he (like others before him) is free to ignore. This is not a biding decision of a change of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I think I'd wait to see what, if anything, is officially promulgated as a result of this recommendation.

This is a good thing.

Next, he needs to accept primacy of HONOR and we're on our way to a meaningful dialogue!

Alex,
Please be more respectful.
Limbo is not a medieval RC concoction but a theological opinion,
which by the way is still valid. But it does not have to be maintained as an article of faith.
Stephanos I

Limbo never was a received doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. It was always a permissible theological opinion.

So all the half-baked hoopla in the press, and among liberal and dissenting Catholic theologians that is showing up in print already, is far more damaging than the little old opinion ever was, or will be for that matter.

Mary

As a member of the Catholic Church I take offensive to your comment Alex.

As Carole said, we need to be clear.

NOTHING has officially changed in regards to limbo, which is not dogmatically binding on Catholics anyway.

A lot of racket about nothing, really.

Alexis

I might add that the media's misunderstanding and contempt for Catholic theology is enough to make me vomit.

Alexis

Yes--but let's be perfectly frank here: Limbo was taught to me, and I'm assuming a lot of other people, right along side heaven, hell, and purgatory. And no one said that it was not doctrine, but simply a theological opinion. So as far as I was concerned, limbo was real, as real as heaven or hell, and part and parcel of Catholic belief.

Limbo can still be taught as a theological opinion. It was never more than that, and just because goodwilled Sisters and such instilled that misconception in students does not make it any less a theological opinion than it ever was.

Alexis

Limbo was taught to me as theological speculation, not doctrine.