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

The fact is like others have said nothing has changed on this doctrine what has changed it that is probably won't be taught in cathechism and CCD classes as in the days of old and thus won't be pushed as an opinion it will fall away as an opinion of the midevils. That being said the east has its teholgical speculations as well as tollhouses and such. There is too much time slamming the speuclations of the midevil church as absurd when it was not absured but a legitamate point of view and in some way a means of progress for the western church in how it saws God's mercy to the unbaptzed remeber limbo was progress from the earlier view Augustine's unbaptized go to hell albeit the best part of hell. So instead of looking down on the speculation it should be thought of a progressive theological speuclation that ultimatly brings the views of the west and east closer to together. And in the big picture that is not such a bad thing. And the divide of purgatory had been much exagerrated as the church view on it nowadays is rather minimal and not the fire and brimstone of the middle ages. So in all these respects the west and east have grown closer.

tobit,

Excellent post. I agree with it 100%. Perhaps Dr. Alex should read your post more carefully.

Dear Friends,

I apologise for giving offense! Limbo has always been an area of "theological grey" and not a defined dogma, so I don't see what the issue is. In fact, this is the first I've heard of "limbo" from RC's in a very long while (years in fact).

For the Christian East, it is something that suggests the Western scholastic penchant for defining everything in neat categories on the basis of "it would seem appropriate that" and the like. The Greeks at Florence were quite shocked when they heard about limbo (and purgatory), as we know.

For me, the notion of limbo where children spend an eternity outside of heaven because they weren't baptized etc. is simply an offense against our Merciful God and Lord.

So forgive me if my reaction against limbo offends some of you. I'm more concerned with its impact on our understanding of God's Mercy.

Alex

As God's mercy is your primary concern, then, perhaps you'd like to explain to us, in this Paschal season, how it is that Christ trampled down death by death, in his harrowing of hell and in His third day Resurrection, and yet left us here in this world to continue to be born in pain, to toil, suffer and die.

What the heck kind of merciful redemption was that?

So here is an observable reality for you to sink your theological teeth into. Perhaps it will distract you from all those wiley systematic western theologians of past ages that you disparage so often.



Take all the time you need. I am in no hurry for an answer.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Actually, I don't understand the first paragraph of your post! You see, I'm not as smart as you think I am !

If Limbo was a development in the West in response to a form of extreme Augustinian versions of the impact of Original Sin on our souls and nature, then, yes, Limbo was merciful and more merciful than to be consigned to hell.

But the problem here is not Limbo per se, but how the impact of Original Sin is perceived. For the East, we are not born completely bereft of Grace, we certainly do not have the "stain" of Adam's sin on our souls and the like. Original Sin already places us within a "social context" of inheritance from our First Parents. The lack of Grace that we experience from THAT social/spiritual relationship is corrected by our new social/spiritual relationship that we experience through Baptism and membership in the Church of Christ.

When children die without baptism, the social/spiritual relationship with their parents and the Church is what brings them before the Divine Presence of God in Heaven, a "baptism of desire" that is intensely lived by their parents, family and the greater family that is the Church. This is why "Limbo" was never even an option in the East.

As with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, so too Limbo is a development intended to address the view of Original Sin that has come to prevail in the West. That is why Limbo is completely irrelevant to the East and has come to be increasingly so in the West. Whenever I've mentioned limbo to my RC teachers, they have always literally laughed it off as something belonging to an uncomplimentary spiritual past. Sorry, but that has been my experience!

As for the suffering we experience in this life, our journey to heaven begins in the now, and not in the hereafter. The fire of suffering is part of the experience of Theosis wherein God fashions us into what He wishes us to be as He draws us closer. As a priest once said, "If we study the Crucifix, we see Christ is crucified on only one side of the Cross - the other side is reserved for us!"

Suffering that slowly liberates us from our concern about our own selves, helps us to focus on Christ Crucified and Glorified, and makes our hearts open and sensitive to the sufferings of others, so much so that we wants to take their pain and put it on ourselves - this is what our calling really is all about. The pain is not God's Will for us but our development into the full stature of Christ is. Unfortunately, we can't do one without the other.

The Cross is merciful because it saves us from eternal suffering even as we shoulder it for a time of temporal suffering.

Like the woman giving birth, we too will forget the suffering at the time of our personal resurrection.

Divine Mercy has a Wounded Heart.

Alex

I understand. I got lost completely after the first paragraph here.

Mary

What do you all think of this article? Apparently, Lyons II and Florence make it clear that that Roman Church teaches that unbaptized infants who die cannot be saved. That there are only two options in Roman Catholic theology: hell, but with mild punishments or limbo (no pain of sense, but loss of beatific vision). This seems to be what the author is saying:

It should be clear from the above survey of relevant Catholic magisterial statements that those who now talk about Limbo as only ever having been a mere "hypothesis", rather than a doctrine, are giving a very misleading impression of the state of the question. They are implying by this that the pre-Vatican II Church traditionally held, or at least implicitly admitted, that an alternate 'hypothesis' for unbaptized infants was their attainment of eternal salvation � Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth. Limbo for unbaptized infants was indeed a theological "hypothesis"; but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a 'hypothetical' destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') � at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ � this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely "authentic".

Here is the complete article:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

The author is a professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico. If what he is saying is correct, then it would seem that the western Church is bound to proclaim as de fide that the unbaptized have no genuine hope for heaven, though we can hope that at the most, they will experience only the loss of the beatific vision.

Joe

One more article. This one is by Stephen Barr back in December 2006, First Things.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=502

He seems to hold that while it is not defined explicitly, it is implicitly taught in the Church's ordinary magisterium that all unbaptized infants who die are excluded from the beatific vision.

Joe

JSMO-

I'm no theologian, but it seems to me that - especially in light of the Pope's approval of the International Theological Commission, as well as his own known private views - that the two articles represent the private views of their authors.

A seperate article:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=83338

So it comes down to which private view you accept.... For what it's worth, I also don't recall seeing "limbo" in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church.

Markos

Markos,

I agree that the viewpoints are just the viewpoints of those authors. I just throw them out as food for thought. I'm going to read the article you've given a link for now

Joe

Not to confuse the issue, but I do believe that it appeared in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X...

I went looking just now but could not find the specific quote.

I did think that this site was interesting, however!

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm

Gordo

Dear Mary,

You got lost on my post or yours? I truly am in limbo here . . .

Alex

I just have to point out that the title of this thread is hilarious.

POPE REVISES LIMBO

-_-

It's hilarious because the media misunderstands the Church. Not because it's true!

Alexis

I never claimed that the media has a proper understanding of the Catholic Church, however this still doesn't take away from the fact that the title is drop dead funny.