Theologians to ask Pope to suspend limbo? [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

nickel

12-01-2005, 09:22 AM

Wed Nov 30, 9:32 AM ET

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Limbo -- the place where the Catholic Church teaches that babies go if they die before being baptized -- may have its days numbered.

According to Italian media reports on Tuesday, an international theological commission will advise Pope Benedict to eliminate the teaching about limbo from the Catholic catechism.

The Catholic Church teaches that babies who die before they can be baptized go to limbo, whose name comes from the Latin for "border" or "edge," because they deserve neither heaven nor hell.

Last October, seven months before he died, Pope John Paul asked the commission to come up with "a more coherent and enlightened way" of describing the fate of such innocents.

It was then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected Pope in April. It is now headed by his successor at the Vatican's doctrinal department, Archbishop William Levada, an American from San Francisco.

The commission, which has been meeting behind closed doors, may make its recommendation soon.

In his Divine Comedy, Dante passes limbo on his way into hell and writes: "Great grief seized on my own heart when this I heard, because some people of much worthiness I knew, who in limbo were suspended."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130/od_nm/pope_limbo_dc

i always disliked the concept of limbo. it was like hell-in-waiting, and even though i tried to be a good Catholic schoolgirl i questioned how a baby who has never done a thing wrong could be cast into limbo upon death.

i am glad they are re-visiting this.

esme

12-01-2005, 09:50 AM

i always disliked the concept of limbo. it was like hell-in-waiting, i questioned how a baby who has never done a thing wrong could be cast into limbo upon death.

i am glad they are re-visiting this.

i'm w/ya ......hopefully they can change it to something a little more comforting .....especially for the lil' angels who are lost in tragic accidents/at birth w/no chance of being baptized!

JackHammer

12-01-2005, 09:56 AM

mcs328

12-01-2005, 10:11 AM

I wish I had magical powers like that. Oh and I agree with JH. It's either there or it isn't but no way to tell for sure and no way to prove it.

Grimm

12-01-2005, 10:17 AM

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 10:42 AM

i always disliked the concept of limbo. it was like hell-in-waiting, and even though i tried to be a good Catholic schoolgirl i questioned how a baby who has never done a thing wrong could be cast into limbo upon death.

i am glad they are re-visiting this.
Same way all the other good nonchristians end up in limbo/hell: Original sin.

The real question is how can you edit faith. That is, what is the influence that changes the belief if the influence is not evidence and the belief is not based on evidence.
(Pretty much the same question jack hammer had)

zenbooty

12-01-2005, 10:43 AM

I don't understand the concept how the Roman Catholic Church can suspend something like this? I mean if Catholicism is the true religion, heaven, hell, limbos are just the way things are. How can the pope or any human being meet behind close doors to change it. If limbo is true, it cannot be changed. That's just the way it is.In the RCC, the Pope is basically revered as God's right hand. So by the very definition of his position, any decree he makes is just the extension of God's will. This is how the Catholic Church is able to "keep up with the times." For example, it eventually became obvious that despite the Church's teachings otherwise, the Earth was round and not flat, and not the center of the universe. In that case, the Church couldn 't simply admit they were wrong, as that would fly in the face of the Pope's infallibility. No, instead they convene and come out with a decree that the Earth is now round and no longer the center of the universe. Its not that they were ever incorrect, but merely that God's will has changed, for whatever reason.

Yeah, I ain't buyin' it either. But that's pretty much how the RCC works.

Mommypooh

12-01-2005, 10:49 AM

I have learned a lot about catholism latly due to my dad being catholic and I wanted to know more about it. I am staying where I am. Imo I think that the catholic church is just about control. I know lots of catholics that are my friends, but it just ain't right for me. I will stay with the methodists for now.

I guess they are trying to hook new members by changing policy and making it a little less scary.

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 11:08 AM

....

Now how does the evolution thing work. God can't change his mind on how he created us.

Grimm

12-01-2005, 11:13 AM

Now how does the evolution thing work. God can't change his mind on how he created us.
Actualy God can do anything. Evolution and Creationism are not mutualy exclusive.

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 11:19 AM

zenbooty

12-01-2005, 11:23 AM

Now how does the evolution thing work. God can't change his mind on how he created us.
You're not supposed to ask questions like that. That's how it works ;)

eSDee

12-01-2005, 11:24 AM

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 11:25 AM

You're not supposed to ask questions like that. That's how it works ;):heh: All right, for my next trick: Pick a geneology, any geneology.

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 11:28 AM

What they can do is change the perception of what it is, claiming they have learned more about it through new insights based on continuing research.

That would involve admitting fault. Admitting fault would undermine faith itself. If one aspect of faith can be wrong, so can the rest of it.

johnnymk

12-01-2005, 11:54 AM

Rush Limbaugh is not in the Bible :shrug:

Grimm

12-01-2005, 11:56 AM

That would involve admitting fault. Admitting fault would undermine faith itself. If one aspect of faith can be wrong, so can the rest of it.
Not really. They are just admitting that they don't know absolutely everything yet. But that should already be apparent. The only one who knows everything is God.

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 12:11 PM

How is that not admitting fault. If I say the world is flat and tomorrow I say the world is round, I'm as good as admitting my first statement was wrong.

Grimm

12-01-2005, 12:24 PM

How is that not admitting fault. If I say the world is flat and tomorrow I say the world is round, I'm as good as admitting my first statement was wrong.
Not if you said "I believe the world is flat" as opposed to "The world is flat".
When later you say "Additional research has caused us to beleive the world is a sphere" you are not admiting any fault. You are announcing that you continued to learn and adjusted your belief accordingly.

Do researchers stop and give up on an area of science when one hypothisis turns out to be incorrect? Did they scrap medical science all together when the found out that temperature did have an effect on the transmition of the comon cold? For years they said it didn't but then the yfound out different. They adjusted their hypothesis and moved on.

JackHammer

12-01-2005, 12:45 PM

Not if you said "I believe the world is flat" as opposed to "The world is flat".
When later you say "Additional research has caused us to beleive the world is a sphere" you are not admiting any fault. You are announcing that you continued to learn and adjusted your belief accordingly.

Do researchers stop and give up on an area of science when one hypothisis turns out to be incorrect? Did they scrap medical science all together when the found out that temperature did have an effect on the transmition of the comon cold? For years they said it didn't but then the yfound out different. They adjusted their hypothesis and moved on.

Well to be exact the RCC were and has been always adamant about their beliefs. Be it the world being flat to us being the center of the universe and the orbits of the heavenly bodies. It was to the extreme that they killed and ostracized people who believed otherwise. The RCC does not subscribe to the policy of continueing to learn and adjusting their beliefs.

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 12:53 PM

I'm sure they can hand wave that away as God's will or "Devil made me do it"

Not if you said "I believe the world is flat" as opposed to "The world is flat".
When later you say "Additional research has caused us to beleive the world is a sphere" you are not admiting any fault. You are announcing that you continued to learn and adjusted your belief accordingly.

Do researchers stop and give up on an area of science when one hypothisis turns out to be incorrect? Did they scrap medical science all together when the found out that temperature did have an effect on the transmition of the comon cold? For years they said it didn't but then the yfound out different. They adjusted their hypothesis and moved on.

Okay, I see how that works for science but without evidence, faith just boils down to guess and check.

Kevster

12-01-2005, 01:41 PM

From what I understand limbo was never a fundamental teaching of the Bible or the Catholic Church. The idea of limbo was created be theologians who explained what happened to people who died before Christ came to let them into heaven. Somewhere along the line they extended that to babies who were never baptized, which now they are saying was not such a solid theory. I think it's good.

:stupid:

This is what I was taught. You have to remember that during the middle ages, theologians were concerned with many of the 'what if?' scenarios and this was one that they had to come up with to explain what would happen to those that had not been baptized, very often infants that died in childbirth. I remember the Jesuit who went over this in my freshman class (Fr. Olsen for those who here who went to Jesuit H.S. in Sacramento) said that the Catholic Church has been trying to downplay this, especially since Vatican II.

Cheesypuff

12-01-2005, 01:47 PM

so where are the babies going to go now!??!

HECK?

gwilks98

12-01-2005, 01:57 PM

I heard one person describe heaven as a place where your always in the presence of God. Hell is the complete absence of God.

I wonder how Catholics would fit limbo into that.

cheapie

12-01-2005, 02:33 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130/od_nm/pope_limbo_dc

i always disliked the concept of limbo. it was like hell-in-waiting, and even though i tried to be a good Catholic schoolgirl i questioned how a baby who has never done a thing wrong could be cast into limbo upon death.

i am glad they are re-visiting this.

that's why i find the idea of original sin and infant babtism inconsistant with the bible. salvation is something we need after we have sinned. even though the are born with a sinful nature babies cannot sin until they reach the age of accountability. the bible says in many places that salvation comes through faith in God and through confession of faith. how can a baby, mentally handicapped, etc. person do that? they can't. and they can't sin either.

here's a good page that describes how i believe. http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

InfiniteNothing

12-01-2005, 02:53 PM

I read the link. Psalm 51.5 seems pretty clear :shrug: his counter arguments are pretty weak. They have a lot of "maybe"s and "God would"s.

I get the feeling that he's picking and chosing what he wants to believe.

Grimm

12-01-2005, 03:16 PM

The RCC does not subscribe to the policy of continueing to learn and adjusting their beliefs.
While this is historicaly true, over the last couple of decades this policy has shifted some. The availability of information and easy communication has forced the church to adapt to a more informed congragation.

zenbooty

12-01-2005, 06:36 PM

I heard one person describe heaven as a place where your always in the presence of God. Hell is the complete absence of God.

I wonder how Catholics would fit limbo into that.God's Parlour? Guesthouse? The kids' table?

nickel

12-02-2005, 06:44 AM

I heard one person describe heaven as a place where your always in the presence of God. Hell is the complete absence of God.

I wonder how Catholics would fit limbo into that.
are you asking for a description of limbo? i was taught that it feels like hell but you know it is only temporary. praying for a person that might be stuck in limbo helps him get to heaven faster.

i've always thought of it as a ladder. with time you keep moving up the rungs and get closer and closer to the top.

(chime in Kevster. is that what you were taught too?)

cheapie

12-02-2005, 06:53 AM

lol. i sometimes wonder where in the world some of this stuff comes from. no offense intended.

nickel

12-02-2005, 06:59 AM

lol. i sometimes wonder where in the world some of this stuff comes from. no offense intended.
yeh, so do i, but if you are born and raised to believe in it you do.
isn't anyone who believes in God running on faith and what they've been taught?
i mean, who has seen him? some would argue of his existence because only seeing is believing. and yet you believe.

cheapie

12-02-2005, 07:10 AM

i'm talking about the stuff that's outside and actually in direct conflict with the bible.

zenbooty

12-02-2005, 08:58 AM

are you asking for a description of limbo? i was taught that it feels like hell but you know it is only temporary. praying for a person that might be stuck in limbo helps him get to heaven faster.

i've always thought of it as a ladder. with time you keep moving up the rungs and get closer and closer to the top.Sorry, but that's Purgatory, not Limbo. Purgatory is for those who've been baptised, gone through all the procedures and ceremonies, but still have unforgiven sin on their hands, so to speak. They can be redeemed, but must cleanse themselves of these sins first before they may rise to the heavens (through horrible trials of pain, of course!).

You don't leave Limbo, it is a place for those who through no fault of their own did not have the opportunity to be "saved" by Christ, but who were otherwise virtuous (or innocent, in the case of babies). Its not a place of pain or punishment, but merely a neutral existence, away from God but not damned to Hell.

nickel

12-02-2005, 09:50 AM

i'm talking about the stuff that's outside and actually in direct conflict with the bible.
in direct conflict or not mentioned?

nickel

12-02-2005, 09:52 AM

Sorry, but that's Purgatory, not Limbo. Purgatory is for those who've been baptised, gone through all the procedures and ceremonies, but still have unforgiven sin on their hands, so to speak. They can be redeemed, but must cleanse themselves of these sins first before they may rise to the heavens (through horrible trials of pain, of course!).

You don't leave Limbo, it is a place for those who through no fault of their own did not have the opportunity to be "saved" by Christ, but who were otherwise virtuous (or innocent, in the case of babies). Its not a place of pain or punishment, but merely a neutral existence, away from God but not damned to Hell.
you are correct sir. it's been awhile since Catechism class for me.
and frankly after school no one has really talked about purgatory or limbo anymore.

cheapie

12-02-2005, 01:56 PM

in direct conflict or not mentioned?

direct conflict. the idea of someone gaining their salvation after death through other people's intercession is against so many scriptures.

molecularfire

12-02-2005, 06:06 PM

How is that not admitting fault. If I say the world is flat and tomorrow I say the world is round, I'm as good as admitting my first statement was wrong.
You are obviously not married. :hihi:

InfiniteNothing

12-02-2005, 06:28 PM

i'm talking about the stuff that's outside and actually in direct conflict with the bible.

As you've shown, the Bible can be interpreted to say pretty much anything. And I can't see why any one interpretation would be better than any other.

Houdini

12-02-2005, 06:50 PM

In the RCC, the Pope is basically revered as God's right hand. So by the very definition of his position, any decree he makes is just the extension of God's will. This is how the Catholic Church is able to "keep up with the times." For example, it eventually became obvious that despite the Church's teachings otherwise, the Earth was round and not flat, and not the center of the universe. In that case, the Church couldn 't simply admit they were wrong, as that would fly in the face of the Pope's infallibility. No, instead they convene and come out with a decree that the Earth is now round and no longer the center of the universe. Its not that they were ever incorrect, but merely that God's will has changed, for whatever reason.

Yeah, I ain't buyin' it either. But that's pretty much how the RCC works.

Not quite. I don't think any pope made an infallable statement about the earth's position relative to the sun, etc. Ex-Cathedra statements aren't made about such things. The Church, especially in the past few hundred years, has been very, very concerned with good science and does allow for discoveries, regardless of what previous teachings might have been.

Remember, the Pope is only infallable only strict and rare circumstances, and this has only happened a handful of times.

In a situation like this, it sounds like JPII knew that the idea was based on ideas that some theologians hundreds of years ago came up with. That's why he asked for a clarification. I don't see it as a change of beliefs or a departure from Catholic doctrine.

Houdini

12-02-2005, 06:53 PM

I never said they weren't (in this thread :P)
I was saying that the Catholic position on Evolution has changed. But it is a contradiction to say we were created in our present form and then say we were suddenly evolved. If God were to unring a bell then at no point was it rung.

I don't think it has changed. As far as I know, the Catholic position was that God created the universe, us, etc. It never, nor does it now, try to explain how. It didn't change its mind about evolution. It allows for science to work things like that out.

InfiniteNothing

12-02-2005, 11:07 PM

Are you saying they never interpreted the Adam an Eve story literally as an explanation of how God created us?

Houdini

12-03-2005, 12:24 PM

Are you saying they never interpreted the Adam an Eve story literally as an explanation of how God created us?

I have no idea how the early Church interpreted the Genesis story, as for the first couple of hundred years they were in hiding. However, I've never known of or heard of anything in the Church's teachings endorsing a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible. The Catholic Church is pretty cool with scientific discoveries regarding evolution or whatever, as long as the "uncaused cause" is respected.

InfiniteNothing

12-03-2005, 02:57 PM

Houdini

12-03-2005, 03:32 PM

You don't have to go back too far:

1994 Catechism (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/visible3.html)
(first paragraph)

The very concept of a "first man" is contradictory to Evolution: A natural gradual change from one generation to the next.

Here's the quote:

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".[250] This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".[251]

How does that contradict evolution? A "first man" evolved, no? It interprets the "symbolism of biblical language." It also shows respect for tradition. If Adam and Eve are symbolic first people (and likely not just both of them, but Adam=man, Eve=woman), created by God through whatever means, what's the problem? Nothing there states HOW God created the "first man" or woman for that matter. I don't see how the Church's position has changed.

InfiniteNothing

12-03-2005, 03:45 PM

Here's the quote:

How does that contradict evolution? A "first man" evolved, no?
I don't believe so, no. It was gradual change right up until what mankind is today and we are still changing.

Houdini

12-04-2005, 06:48 PM

I don't believe so, no. It was gradual change right up until what mankind is today and we are still changing.

Correct, but a first population of people like us evolved, right? Or are you just trying to be difficult?

attgig

12-04-2005, 08:19 PM

(i think IN was agreeing with you houdini.)
wish i joined in this coversation a lot earlier. anyways, i hit quote to like 5 postings and realized i wanted to respond to way too much stuff, so I'll try to summarize.

to a couple of InfiniteNothing's posts
in terms of the validity of "editing faith" when there is an "absolute truth", I'm going to present it this way (take it with however many grains of salt you need with this to make it palatable). our faith and theology is simply how we understand and can comprehend God - an infinite being that is far beyond comprehension. as culture, scientific knowledge, and human experiences mold and change us, how we comprehend the incomprehensible will change. the absolute truth (that is God - his being) does not change, but our abilities and methods in understanding him can change. Sometimes, this will involve rejecting the old beliefs, but more often, it will be a shaping of our current beliefs into something closer to the truth.

now when deso this practice actually "undermine faith"? I don't think that our perception or belief of what happens to those around us will or should undermine our basic belief in salvation that comes from Jesus. I won't discount the fact that the ramifications of this can affect people's perception of God (what if the RCC declares that these babies go to Hell....can they believe that God is good?), but the basic premise of the faith is still unaffected....our salvation comes only from Jesus. When we start questioning these foundational truths is when there is a danger of faith being undermined.

As for cheapies' "age-of-accountability" answer. The left behind series subscribes to this theory, but I don't know if i completely agree with that theory. Some of the stuff that the author used in that gotquestions site isn't the best interpretation. his explanations of #1 & #2 are somewhat narrowly focused. He/she does qualify that the argument from silence isn't the best. the John 3:18 passage states there are believers and non believers taking the stance of if you don't make a decision not to believe, you must not be condemned... but you can read it the other way (if you don't believe, then you are condemned). I can go on, but i think it'll make for boring reading.