Reply With Quote
Where's my money GON??
Where's my money GON??
My dad told me about this last week.... Interesting....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope to Abolish “limbus infantium”
Posted 10/3/2006 10:10 PM
What happens to babies who die before baptism, according to Catholic teaching? For years “limbus infantium”, a half-way holding spot for such infants has been the accepted theory of the Roman Catholic church. Later this week Pope Benedict is expected to remove this teaching from the Catholic cateshism.
The London Times is reporting this in tomorrow's newspaper. Here are a couple of quotes from the article:
...its lack of doctrinal authority has long failed to impress the Pope. who was recorded as saying before his election: “Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis.”
Read the whole article as it gives a concise overview of the history of the teaching. Particularly interesting is the quote from the church father Augustine of Hippo.
Since the core of this erroneous teaching centers of the question of the fate of those who die without accepting Christ as personal savior you should also read this chapter from our booklet, "What Happens At Death".
Rest assured God's merciful plan includes all who have lived and died without coming to understand His plan for their life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
London Times
Pope tries to win hearts and minds by saving souls of unbaptised babies
By Ruth Gledhill and Richard Owen
THE Pope will cast aside centuries of Catholic belief later this week by abolishing formally the concept of limbo, in a gesture calculated to help to win the souls of millions of babies in the developing world for Christ.
All the evidence suggests that Benedict XVI never believed in the idea anyway. But in the fertile evangelisation zones of Africa and Asia, the Pope — an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic — is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to Heaven. For the Church, looking to spread the faith in countries with a high infant mortality rate, now is a good time to make it absolutely clear that stillborn babies of Christian mothers go direct to Heaven, too.
Anyone who deludes themselves that Muslims do not know about limbo would be wrong. Dante put Jerusalem’s conqueror Saladin in limbo in his Inferno, along with Ovid and Homer and other pre-Christian villains and heroes.
Even though it has never been part of the Church’s doctrine formally, the existence of limbo was taught until recently to Catholics around the world. In Britain it was in the Penny Catechism, approved by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, that declared limbo “a place of rest where the souls of the just who died before Christ were detained”.
But its lack of doctrinal authority has long failed to impress the Pope. who was recorded as saying before his election: “Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis.”
This week a 30-strong Vatican international commission of theologians, which has been examining limbo, began its final deliberations. Vatican sources said it had concluded that all children who die do so in the expectation of “the universal salvation of God” and the “mediation of Christ”, whether baptised or not.
The theologians’ finding is that God wishes all souls to be saved, and that the souls of unbaptised children are entrusted to a “merciful God” whose ways of ensuring salvation cannot be known. “In effect, this means that all children who die go to Heaven,” one source said.
The commission’s conclusions will be approved formally by the Pope on Friday.
Christians hold that Heaven is a state of union with God, while is separation from God. They have long wrestled, however, not only with the fate of unbaptised children, but also with the conundrum of what happened to those who lived a “good life” but died before the time of Jesus.
The answer since the 13th century has been limbo. What remains in an uncertain state, though, is the status of all the pre-Christian and unbaptised adult souls held by some still to be in this halfway house between Heaven and .
The Pope is expected to abolish only “limbus infantium”, where the souls of unbaptised infants go. The precise status of “limbus patrum”, where the good people went who lived before Christ remains . . . well, in limbo.
Although it is the latter that has been subject to such dramatic representation in art and literature, no Christian mother today who miscarries, has a stillborn child or otherwise loses a baby before baptism can bear to view without a purgatorial shudder the traditional images, such as those by Giotto, of Christ freeing Old Testament figures from limbo.
In propelling limbo out of its own uncertain state, the Pope is merely acknowledging the distress its half-existence causes to millions and is bringing his characteristic Teutonic sense of righteous clarity to the matter.
One of the reasons Baptists and some other Protestant denominations resist infant baptism is because they believe the souls of babies are innocent and that it is for adults to choose a life in Christ or otherwise. The Early Church father Tertullian opposed infant baptism on these grounds. But the teachings that took hold of the imagination and the faith of the early Christians were those of the Greek fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus who wrote: “It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, they are not wicked.”
This seems lenient compared with St Augustine, who in 418 persuaded the Council of Carthage to condemn the British Pelagian heresy that there was an “in between” place for unbaptised babies. He persuaded the council that unbaptised babies share the general misery of the damned. The most he would concede was that their misery was not quite as bad as that of wicked dead adults.
VISIONS OF AN ETERNAL HALFWAY HOUSE
Dante’s The Divine Comedy describes limbo as the first circle of , inhabited by unbaptised children and virtuous pagans born before Christianity. Among them are Homer, Ovid, Socrates and Plato
In his novel The First Circle, Alexander Solzhenitsyn compares life in a Stalinist prison camp to limbo. The prisoners are unlikely to reach “heaven”, but still enjoy relative freedom within the Gulag system, avoiding the worst of this “ ”
Shakespeare uses “Limbo Patrum” (Limbo of the fathers) as a metaphor for prison in Henry VIII
To Samuel Taylor Coleridge, limbo is not a place, but a frightening state, “where Time & weary Space Fettered from flight, with night-mair sense of fleeing Strive for their last crepuscular half-being”
In The Rape of the Lock Alexander Pope locates the stage between heaven and in the lunar sphere, where all things lost on earth find their place. There, “smiles of harlots” are preserved with “the tears of heirs”, broken vows and prayers
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-27-2006 at 11:38 AM.
I'm impressed.
How do I get you the $20?
I'll send you a check tomorrow.
Not necessary. It was in jest.
Well, maybe someday we will meet at a gtg and I will buy you $20 worth of expensive beer.
I'm good for it.
I, personally, have not heard a single word about limbo since I was in elementary school. It has never appeared in print in anything I was ever taught.Even though it has never been part of the Church’s doctrine formally, the existence of limbo was taught until recently to Catholics around the world.
But again I ask- why the obsession with what the Catholics are doing?
No obsession on my part. But this is a thread about Catholics. Thus the discussion.
This discussion has been quite educational, IMHO.
To address your question... the article shows that the Catholic Doctrine is not always perfect... it can in fact change to progress. That is a good thing.
The 'bad' thing is that it proves yet again that the 'doctrinal infallibility' that the Papal seat has always waved around as a 'seal of divine authority' really doesn't exist. And this has been a significant point throughout this discussion; why? Because it negates the RCC ins ution the exclusivity rights it has always claimed for herself only. Again, I'll restate: One blunder alone on matters of doctrine nullifies the existence of the concept of 'doctrinal infallibility' - one instance alone. This doesn't hurt the RCC's cause as much as it grants other perspectives the right to exist.
To be fair to our Catholic friends, not all teachings by the pope are considered 'ex cathedra,' which are the allegedly infallible ones. In fact, such teachings are quite rare. In the past 100 years, only the Assumption of Mary has been issued as an infallible teaching.
And from reading the article, 30 theologians deliberated on this issue, which makes it more of an "e enical council" kind of teaching than a Papal edict.
I presume by reading this article that Benedict will issue this ruling about the fate of children infallibly, but certainly you know that journalism is quite fallible, and we won't know until we see the ruling.
Catholic doctrine does allow for what I think is called "magisterium ordinarium," or ordinary teaching, which is not considered infallible and can be changed.
Granted....
The teaching, however, was one that was always unsubstatiated by scripture. It just goes to show that others outside the RCC were able to 'see' that truth long before this council convened. And that observation is still rather significant in its own right.
There is no teaching on the eternal fate of children that can be fully substantiated by Scripture, because Scripture is vague on this point.
From my standpoint, that means that there is no definitive teaching. It hasn't stopped even Protestant and evangelical churches from presuming one, however.
Though I agree that the status of children, in particular the status of infants is not explicitly stated, I still believe that the transcendent pause that Christ took to welcome children in his embrace in Matthew Chapter 19 is very significant. He was talking about divorce, and then makes a pause to address children, and finally has his well-known conversation with the rich young man.
I also believe that children have a special status in God's Kingdom; Jesus held them up as an example for us. Jesus, when asked who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, answered the question by placing a little child in the midst of the disciples and saying:
Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself, as this little child, the same is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in My name, receiveth Me...Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in Heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father who is in Heaven. (Matthew 18:3-5,10)
Whosoever shall receive this child in My name receiveth Me; and whosoever shall receive Me receiveth Him that sent Me. For he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. (Luke 9:48)
Suffer [allow] little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 19:14).
Again, this last verse is poignant in that it implies that the consciousness of children is not developed enough to have been fully corrupted. It almost seems, as I alluded to in another post, that Christ does make exceptions for children - where only GOD decides their eternal fate on a case by case assessment.
Spiritually speaking, Jesus also wishes that our spirit be like that of children, and implies that without said spiritual condition we ourselves cannot enter heaven. It may in fact only be a symbolic comparison that relates the complete parental dependence of a child to one that GOD 'the Father' desires for us. One where we are completely dependent on Him and not on ourselves.
Eitherway, I agree that a controversy does exist on the subject and that only GOD can reconcile His attributes as He sees fit. I'm just inclined to believe that Christ did address the afterlife status of children - though not as explicitly as we would have hoped. I still maintain, however, that 'infant limbo' is a human concoction that is not supported at all by scripture - one that was created to stress the importance of infant baptism - a practice that again is explicitly absent from scripture.
And that yet is practiced as well by very many Protestants.
The reason I bring that up is because you cause a self-inflicted wound in your reasoning by citing infant baptism.
Infant baptism is practiced by Protestant groups who also affirm Sola Scriptura. Their arguments defending it stem only from Scripture.
So if you rail against it too hard, you move from criticism of extra-biblical tradition, into the casting of a Scriptural interpretation with which you disagree as extra-biblical.
And that would make you as narrowly dogmatic as you are criticizing the Catholic hierarchy as being, and would hamstring your point.
What exactly does this mean?
It means that Protestants are Christians, just not as good of Christians as Catholics are, on account of our erroneous doctrine.
My denomination doesn't practice it.... either way, it's not as inflicting as say recognizing that limbo doesn't exist after several centuries of teaching that it did... The only reason I even brought up infant baptism was to stress that the existence of limbo was one that 'pushed' prac ioners into that practice.
BTW my beliefs are personal so they are going to be narrow by definition. Stating however that my position hurts my cause is irrelevant because I don't chastise others for believing what they do. Otherwise I would have entered the infant baptism debate by page 12 (when someone else brought it up). My criticisms fall solely on the assumption that the RCC never errs.
I still don't understand what that means. That is why I was asking about the requirements to get to heaven. I'm trying to get a full picture of what they mean by not being in "full Union" or not being "as good of Christians". It's still a pretty vague term IMO.
Furthermore, I would hope that by now you would know that I've never claimed to be doctrinally infallible. Or claimed that I or any other protestant practioner have got it perfectly right. Neither did I stake to know GOD's full revelation. That is why we are called to "study the scriptures without ceasing"
I just didn't want you opened up for attack on that front. Of course each person who searches the Scriptures has a personal opinion on disputable matters of doctrine. I just saw a criticism of infant baptism as un-Scriptural rhetorically as a problematic path to take based upon your line of argument.
I see this whole exercise as apologetics practice, so take my advice only as critique on technique, and not as critique of your belief system or character.
On the subject of limbo, I question whether your criticism of the church changing its teachings here is really valid. Since limbo for children was never official church doctrine, but rather an opinion expressed by certain theologians, I don't see how this particular point makes Catholic teaching internally inconsistent. It seems they allow differing opinions on matters that are not taught ex cathedra, so that one priest's teaching may not be identical to another on these issues.
I'm sure you have experience as well as I do of Protestant pastors in one denomination or another presenting their exegesis as the "right" one, even when it goes well beyond the official position of the sect (say, the BF&M for the SBC). I'm sure you also have experience with pastors coming with up ideas not explicitly supported by Scripture in order to resolve perceived conflicts within the text.
As far as the Scriptural basis for limbo, it appears weak, but not absent. I believe the cited verses would be Luke 16:22-23, and and Luke 23:43. It refers not to the Dantean sense of the word, but rather the waiting place of reighteous souls prior to Jesus' Resurrection. The word "limbo" is meant to describe what is called in Scripture "Abraham's side" or "Paradise."
Believe it or not, I have sat in a Southern Baptist Sunday school class and heard the teacher tell me that Paradise was where the Jews went when they died until Jesus' sacrifice allowed them to enter heaven. I'm guessing Frank Page would not be thrilled with that line of teaching.
Of course, in my personal exegesis, these views show needless deference towards linear time in the Kingdom of Heaven, borne of inadequate human cognitive ability to perceive the eternality of God not just into the past and future, but off the timeline entirely.
Infant limbo has never been officially taught in the RCC; in fact, there has been debate for centuries on how unbaptized infants might be saved. So it seems you might have it backwards; the practice of infant baptism led to the hypothesis about infant limbo, not the other way around.
Benedict's initiative here could be seen as more of an effort to eliminate a hypothesis he finds troublesome, much as JPII rooted out liberation theology.
I have to go back to the discussion of limbo. You are missing the entire point about Catholic doctrine.
First- limbo was NEVER an official doctrine of the Church- EVER- your own article brings that out.
Second, you keep saying over and over something that is simply UNTRUE and I wish you would quit. Nowhere does anyone claim that the Pope is perfect or infallible in all he does. As someone even pointed out to you- that designation is only for very, very specific doctrines, only one of which has occurred in the past 100 years. So, your continued problems are with something that quite frankly does not even exist.
As for baptizing infants we all know there are stories about entire households being baptized in the New Testament, and it would seem reasonable that some of these families included babies or children below the age of reason. We also know that Christianity came from Judaism, in which parents had prescribed practices with regards to their infants- cir cision, etc... Even Jesus' own parents made their offering in accord with this.
And since H brought it up- if you are so literal about the Bible-
Why do Protestants allow remarriage after divorce?
Of course you know from reading 1 Corinthians 3 that Christians in heaven do not receive equal reward. One person can be a "better Christian" than another, though if one thinks he is, it most assuredly means he is not!
And the idea of Protestants not being in "full Union" is that the RCC believes it is THE Church, not just a particular assembly of believers. They believe they are THE Body of Christ, THE Bride of Christ, and that we Protestants are just a very rebellious and naughty part of them.
They would regard us perhaps as The People's Republic of China sees Taiwan, as a renegade province, except I don't expect them to invade anytime soon.
I totally agree.
I am confused as to why someone is so up in arms about a religion attempting to help people who in times of crisis wonder what happens to their children. What do you tell a woman who loses a baby- oh, I'm sorry, the Bible does not specfically tell us what happens so I can't help you?
I think what perplexes me is the notion that somehow the Bible has directly addressed every issue and every question that could possibly ever be raised. I just don't see that it does. People will take what they read and attempt to apply it to very complex issues to help them understand.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions