• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Pope Abolishes the State of Limbo

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,580
The Pope will this week overturn a belief held by Roman Catholics since medieval times by abolishing the concept of Limbo.

Limbo is traditionally held to be the place where the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised and so freed from original sin.

It is also the fate of “holy people” such as the prophet Abraham who lived before the time of Jesus Christ, who Christians believe offered mankind redemption through his death and Resurrection.

This week a 30-strong Vatican international commission of theologians which has been examining Limbo began its final deliberations. Vatican sources said that 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 formally approved by Pope Benedict XVI at a mass on Friday in the Redemptoris Mater chapel in the Apostolic Palace, a richly decorated chapel restored by John Paul II and used for the proclamation of papal “magisterial teachings” as well as spiritual retreats and ecumenical services.

The process of doing away with Limbo began under the late John Paul II. He was backed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - now Pope - who as John Paul II’s guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy once observed that Limbo had “never been a definitive truth of the faith”.

He added:”Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis”. The theological commission is currently chaired by Archbishop William Levada of the United States, the Pope’s chosen successor as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Christians hold that Heaven is a state of union with God, while Hell is separation from God. Christians have long wrestled, however, with the conundrum of what happened to those who lived a “good life” but died before the time of Jesus, as well as the fate of children who die without being christened.

The answer since the 13th century has been Limbo - from the Latin limbus, meaning a hem or boundary - held to be the temporary resting place of “the souls of good persons who died before the resurrection of Jesus” (limbus patrum, or Limbo of the Fathers) and the home in the afterlife of “those who die in infancy without having been freed from original sin” (limbus infantium, or Limbo of the Children).

St Thomas Aquinas described the “limbo of children” as an “eternal state of natural joy” in which unbaptised children were unaware of the greater joy of Heaven.

The concept was given papal authority by Pope Pius X (1903-1914), who in his Catechism declared Limbo to be a place where the unbaptised “do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer...they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory”.

This was quietly dropped from the Cathechism issued under John Paul II, who in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) - referring to victims of abortion - said the Church “does not know the fate of unbaptised infants” and can only “trust in God’s mercy and love.”

Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the theological commission, said that dropping Limbo reflected “a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love.”

Vatican officials said the Pope was not overturning a “doctrine”, since Limbo had no Scriptural authority and is not part of the Church’s official dogma, unlike Heaven, Hell and Purgatory.

The Old Testament does however refer to “the bosom of Abraham”, a place which is neither heaven nor hell and where the “righteous dead” await entry to Paradise.

The commission was not asked to consider whether unbaptised adults also die in the hope of entry to Heaven. Some theologians hold that original sin bars the unbaptised from the “pure beatific vision” of Paradise.

Others say that God seeks to “save” everyone, and note that Jesus himself told the two (presumably unbaptised) thieves crucified alongside him that that they would join him “this day” in “Paradise” (Luke 23:43).

Limbo was described by Dante as a place in the first circle of Hell, beyond the river Acheron and before the judgment seat of Minos, where “virtuous pagans” and classical philosophers such as Plato and Socrates resided as well as the Old Testament prophets. In colloquial speech “limbo” has come to mean any uncertain or intermediate state.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 12,00.html


is it he or all the other popes who are infallible? :?
 
Excellent news. Wonder how Derek Acorah will take the news?
 
Limbo hasn't been abolished. It's simply being moved to a call centre in India -

-
 
Limbo hasn't been abolished. It's simply being moved to a call centre in India

AOL tech support's going to be an even bigger bundle of fun once all the dead babies start showing up there... :shock:
 
< ZURÜCK -
Artikel auf http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=14836

04. Oktober 2006, 13:01
Unbaptized Children: Limbo, Vision of God or Rahner’s reincarnation?

A new scientific study takes on the fate of unbaptized children. The author Johannes M. Schwarz PhD. in a KATH.NET interview.

For your doctoral dissertation you chose the study of the fate of unbaptized children. What were the motives for this choice? Is the subject still relevant today?

My interest in this question was prompted by a series of conversations I had with a friend and colleague back in 2004, when John Paul II. asked the International Theological Commission (ITC) to study themes related to the question of unbaptized children. I guess, this move of the pontiff answers the question of whether the subject is still relevant today. It does however not explain the reason why there is still debate on such a sensitive issue touching the lives of so many families and parents, that have prematurely lost a child. The difficulty in the question lies in the relation of fundamental truths of the faith such as the reality of original sin with the necessity of baptism on the one hand and the universal will of salvation on the other. These two truths meet here, as G. Dyer put it in one of is writings, with ‘clinical precision.’

For me there was also a personal, emotional side to the whole question that came with my long involvement in the Austrian Pro-Life Movement (Youth for Life) and the pastoral duties that I have accepted since starting my doctorate. For these reasons the study was never a mere and abstract academic exercise, but occasionally a theological struggle that had to be fought kneeling. The result, or so I hope, is a contribution to the fruitful discussion of the subject that in our time sometimes suffers from excessive sentiments and lack of historical understanding of the question.

You have mentioned the proceedings of the International Theological Commission. In the last months this very work of the ITC has been accompanied with media headlines such as „Vatican is set to abolish limbo.“ Is the concept of limbo outdated? Which answers and alternatives have been proposed?

The history of theology knows different solutions to the problem of unbaptized children. Apart from the fact of infant baptism and its implied reasons the first Christian centuries yield little. Only with the pelagian controversy certain concepts such as original sin were refined in response to the attacks. This also gave the teaching of the fate of unbaptized children more definite contours. St. Augustine thought these children to be excluded from heaven and citizens of hell. In the West this answer would echo through many centuries, but Augustine himself was in doubt as to the exact punishment these children would undergo - he spoke of ‘slightest pain’ (poena mitissima).

More insights into the nature of original sin as deprivation of sanctifying made the scholastic developments of the question possible. Around 1200 the term “limbo” (border) appears in the context of unbaptized children explaining, that while they are not permitted to enter heaven, they do not suffer from the pain of sense and may even enjoy a certain degree of (natural) happiness. Except for the time of the revival of Augustinian theology around the time of the reformation and the Jansenist crisis, this answer became the common opinion of almost all theologians right up to the 20th century, when the number of critics got more numerous.

To cite the criticisms, that structure mainly around the universal will of salvation, the perfection of the redemptive order or the solidarity of Christ, would go to far in this interview. I would however like to point out two rarely noted problems I have encountered with these arguments. The first is, that the concept of limbo is not as homogeneous as modern discussion often assumes. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Suarez and modern limbo theologians describe limbo quite differently. For this reason some critiques of limbo apply only to a certain variation of the limbo theory, leaving the others untouched.

The second problem in many modern works is the theological discussion of church documents. It might be true that there are no definitory statements on the questions, but there is a firm tradition in the ordinary magisterium, that can not simply be discarded. It is insufficient to state that limbo was never defined, and therefore unbaptized children might equally be thought to be in heaven. Historically the doctrinal alternative to limbo never was infant salvation, but a stricter Augustinian interpretation assigning also pain of sense to the state of the children. That limbo was never defined had much to do with leaving room for the Augustinian theory as a study of the Jansenist controversy helps to see. The non-salvation of children was not disputed, except for very limited exceptions (Cajetan and some others). In my opinion a detailed study is yet to be done of some church documents with a focus on the question, but in particular of the third canon of the Council of Carthage. It seems to decide the question in favour of non-salvation, but is missing in different collections of canons. In my study, I found, that the answer usually given, namely that Rome did not accept it because of its content, needs to be reviewed, as there are statements of popes before and after the ratification of that council to the same effect as the disputed canon.

But so much to the question whether the theory of limbo is to be considered outdated. I do not think so, but there are other solutions proposed, that I would briefly like to mention. Most modern attempts try to stay within the frame of the classical substitutes of baptism – baptism of blood and baptism of desire – for in this way the doctrine of the necessity of baptism can be upheld.

In the line of baptism of blood some explain death to be a quasi-sacrament because it would conform one to Christ who died for us. Others explain death to be a channel of grace rendering a decision for or against God possible – thus already pointing to a baptism of desire. In recent years some attempts have been made to claim baptism of blood at least for aborted children.

Other solutions favour a variation of baptism of desire. There is a handful of illumination theories, that vary according to the cause, effect and point of time assigned to the illumination with the possibility to decide the final destination not unlike the angels. Some would make the illumination miraculous, others attribute it to natural causes when body and soul separate. Some assume an illumination prior to death, others in the moment of death, again others at some point after death. Apart from these illumination theories, there exist theories claiming a vicarious desire on the part of the parents or on part of the Church. Again others see some form of unconscious desire on part of the child as a relic of the order of creation or as an addition in the order of redemption. In my book I offer a synthesis and critique of these models and their arguments, that naturally would go beyond the limits of this interview.

Then there is the „open solution“ of the funeral rite of unbaptized children, the catechism (CCC 1261) and Evangelium Vitae (99) according to the (corrected) official version. These documents speak of a hope for a way of salvation, but neither specify that “way” nor do they give certainty as to whether such a way in fact exists. More could be said on the interpretative takes on these texts, but for brevity I again have to refer to by book for a more detailed discussion.

Among the solutions are there any really ‘creative’ ideas?

Indeed there are quite a few ranging from baptism by a guardian angel to the concept of a purgatorial temporary limbo. The most curious while at the same time highly problematic attempt to solve the problem is proposed by no other than Karl Rahner. In an essay on purgatory he speculates also on the fate of unbaptized children. He is convinced that these children will reach heaven, but if they do, they do so without a conscious human act. This would mean that a vast number of the inhabitants of heaven would have attained their end without a personal act and decision. He deems such a prospective “horrible.“ A solution would be furnished by the theories providing some form of baptism of desire for these children as Rahner notes, but he also speculates beyond these bounds. Considering the “vast extension” of the belief in reincarnation in “human religious tradition” there could be just a grain of truth in this belief. At least those, so Rahner, that have died before the exercise of their reason and will could in this way be given a second chance to attain heaven with their cooperation in a “human fashion.” The obvious problem of Rahners reasoning and its departure from the Christian faith does not have to be pointed out.

A truly ‚creative’ solution. At the end of this interview could you please tell us at what readership your publication is aimed at? Any last comments?

So far my work has been published in German. This already limits the prospective readers of this edition. As a dissertation it is an academic not a pastoral work, although the pastoral implications of the question are quite clear. Therefore it is directed at the scholarly community, at pastors and the theologically interested laity. It is not a pastoral guide for parents dealing with the unfortunate loss of a child, as it provides merely an insight into a chapter of the history of theology.

I would however like to conclude with the following personal remark. In my study I found that limbo is not only valid as an explanation, it also has a greater probability than most other theories and as a model of non-salvation a longstanding tradition with authority. I do not rejoice over the fact, that such a state could be the state of unbaptized children. But then, there are many things in this world, I find hard and difficult. I often fail to understand why God permits this or that, but I do not believe in God because he conforms to my image, but simply because God is. I trust, that how he ordains things it is right, just and merciful.

Thank you for this Interview.

This interview may be linked to or copied freely and used in other publications, provided that the source (www.kath.net) is acknowledged.


The book may be ordered through the author using the following email address: [email protected].

Johannes Maria Schwarz
Zwischen Limbus und Gottesschau
Das Schicksal ungetauft sterbender Kinder in der theologischen Diskussion des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Ein theologiegeschichtliches Panorama.
353 pages
€ 14,80 (USD 19,80) + shipping.
 
I must get new specs. I read the title of this thread as 'Pimp to end doctrine of logo'. :(
 
Teaching on Limbo "neither essential nor necessary"

Rome, Oct. 05 (CWNews.com) - The International Theological Commission will recommend against using the concept of Limbo in explaining the eternal fate of unbaptized babies. But the group does not intend any "break from the great tradition of the faith."

Archbishop Bruno Forte, a member of the International Theological Commision, made these predictions in a conversation with the I Media news agency. Archbishop Forte, who was a renowned theologian prior to his appointment in 2004 as Archbishop of Chiete-Vasto, is in Rome this week for the Commission's plenary session, held from October 2 to 6.

The concept of Limbo, which has never been formally defined in Catholic teaching, can be dropped "without compromising the faith at all," the archbishop said. In recommending that move, he said, the Commission is not contemplating a change in doctrine, but only "avoiding the use of images and metaphors that do not adequately account for the richness of the message of hope that is given to us in Jesus Christ."

Archbishop Forte reported that the Commission is close to completion of a statement on the fate of unbaptized children. But he warned that the document, which has been heavily anticipated, is not likely to be publicized soon. He pointed out that the International Theological Commission does not work quickly; the group is convened for 5-year terms, and the current term, which was charged with discussion of this question, began its work in 2004.

While he said that the Commission's statement on unbaptized children is now in "mature" form, the archbishop added that some refinements would be needed before it is complete. Then it would be submitted to Cardinal William Levada, who as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is also the chairman of the International Theological Commission. Cardinal Levada, in turn, would submit the statement to Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news).

The International Theological Commission is an advisory body, and the document that is eventually submitted to the Pontiff will not carry any teaching authority. But Pope Benedict-- who will preside at a Mass on October 6 to conclude this plenary session of the Commission-- may welcome the statement. In 1984, then-Cardinal Ratzinger expressed his own "purely personal" belief that the concept of Limbo had outlived its pastoral value.

Archbishop Forte, a longtime theological colleague of the current Pope, explained to I Media that the document now being prepared by the International Theological Commission does not simply discard the notion of Limbo. Instead, he reported, the statement sets forth the doctrinal questions involved in the discussion, including the reality of Original Sin.

"Original Sin is a reality that really marks the fragility of the human condition," the archbishop remarked. Salvation from sin can come only through Jesus Christ, and baptism is necessary to remove the stain of Original Sin. But in the case of children who are not baptized, through no fault of their own, "then it would seem that the saving power of Christ ought to prevail over the power of sin," he said. In a "complex and secularized society," questions about the fate of unbaptized children are raised more and more frequently, Archbishop Forte said. Most pastors, he continued, respond to those questions by encouraging the faithful to place their trust in God's mercy and entrust the children to his loving care. That pastoral response, he noted, is backed by the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The archbishop emphasized that the International Theological Commission is not introducing any change in Catholic doctrine, and said that he hoped to "reassure those who are worried about a discontinuity" in teaching. The essential doctrinal points that have led theologians to posit the existence of Limbo are still clearly upheld in the forthcoming document, he said; in fact the Commission hopes to present those points with greater clarity.

At the same time, Archbishop Forte said, one can "set aside certain formulations without compromising the faith of the Church in any way." Again he noted that the concept of Limbo had "never been defined by the Church, although it was a very common teaching." In this case, the archbishop said, the International Theological Commission is reaching the conclusion that the concept of Limbo is "neither essential nor necessary."

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46911
 
I've just been reading the comments on the BBC website, it seems that the people who are getting most upset about this are the athiests! - the group that it shouldn't really bother either way!
 
rjmrjmrjm said:
I've just been reading the comments on the BBC website, it seems that the people who are getting most upset about this are the athiests! - the group that it shouldn't really bother either way!
is that the same group that often claim that religion is the cause of all wars?
 
rjmrjmrjm said:
I've just been reading the comments on the BBC website, it seems that the people who are getting most upset about this are the athiests! - the group that it shouldn't really bother either way!

maybe because they consider the concept of limbo to be a cruel form of psychological torture by an institution that has exploited its influence over people's lives to maintain their authority ans wealth. perhaps they're bothered by the hypocrisy of a church who'll say one thing when it suits them and another when it doesn't and at the same time claims exclusive possession of spiritual truth and infallabilty on questions thereof.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
maybe because they consider the concept of limbo to be a cruel form of psychological torture by an institution that has exploited its influence over people's lives to maintain their authority ans wealth. perhaps they're bothered by the hypocrisy of a church who'll say one thing when it suits them and another when it doesn't and at the same time claims exclusive possession of spiritual truth and infallabilty on questions thereof.

Should they not then welcome the fact that the church has 'modernised' and removed such a cruel form of psychological torture.

I dont think that the church has changed its attitude to suit any particular political or social change. It seems that the limbo-problem was entirely self-generated, self-investigated and self-changed. There has been little (generally) outside pressure to changed limbo, so in this sense, it has not been carried out so it suits them but rather that current thinking has led down this path.

<The Chruch> claims exclusive possession of spiritual truth and infallabilty on questions thereof. spiritual truth - not theological theory - which limbo has always been.
 
rjmrjmrjm said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
maybe because they consider the concept of limbo to be a cruel form of psychological torture by an institution that has exploited its influence over people's lives to maintain their authority ans wealth. perhaps they're bothered by the hypocrisy of a church who'll say one thing when it suits them and another when it doesn't and at the same time claims exclusive possession of spiritual truth and infallabilty on questions thereof.

Should they not then welcome the fact that the church has 'modernised' and removed such a cruel form of psychological torture.

I dont think that the church has changed its attitude to suit any particular political or social change. It seems that the limbo-problem was entirely self-generated, self-investigated and self-changed. There has been little (generally) outside pressure to changed limbo, so in this sense, it has not been carried out so it suits them but rather that current thinking has led down this path.

<The Chruch> claims exclusive possession of spiritual truth and infallabilty on questions thereof. spiritual truth - not theological theory - which limbo has always been.

well as soon as they abandon the concept of papal infallability and apologise to all those they've ex-communicated for questioning it then they might make a start. to be honest praising them for changing is no more ridiculous than thanking the school bully for not beating you up any more.

and it may not be entirley true that they changed without cynicism

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 58,00.html

The Muslims, you see, don’t have limbo. They send all babies straight to heaven. Competition is tough out there and the priests in Africa were getting a hard time from mothers for whom high infant mortality is a miserable fact of life. If Muslims and Catholics believe in the same God, but the Muslim babies go to heaven and the Catholic babies don’t, wouldn’t you rather your poor dead baby was a Muslim?
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
The Muslims, you see, don’t have limbo. They send all babies straight to heaven. Competition is tough out there and the priests in Africa were getting a hard time from mothers for whom high infant mortality is a miserable fact of life. If Muslims and Catholics believe in the same God, but the Muslim babies go to heaven and the Catholic babies don’t, wouldn’t you rather your poor dead baby was a Muslim?
That's an excellent point. So, right on the tail of what he had to say about Islam, and in the heat of the abuse probes, he gives us a theological discount. Well spotted, ted.

Perhaps the vatican have been speaking to Max Clifford? ;)
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
The Muslims, you see, don’t have limbo. They send all babies straight to heaven. Competition is tough out there and the priests in Africa were getting a hard time from mothers for whom high infant mortality is a miserable fact of life. If Muslims and Catholics believe in the same God, but the Muslim babies go to heaven and the Catholic babies don’t, wouldn’t you rather your poor dead baby was a Muslim?

Well observed. Proof that big religion is big business, perhaps?
 
I had to post this because a) I wondered how long it'd be before it got on here anyway and b) because I loved the title of the article.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... page_id=34

"The 800-year-old concept of limbo, in which unbaptised babies who die are said to be stuck between Heaven and Hell, has been abolished by the Pope.

Benedict XVI said there were 'serious grounds' to believe that children who died without being baptised could go to heaven after all.

His decision followed a three-year study by a theological commission.

The problem has been the Catholic belief that baptism is the only way to remove the stain of original sin that they think all children are born with.

In the fifth century, St Augustine said babies who died without being baptised went to Hell.

In the 13th century, theologians came up with the concept of limbo as a place where dead babies were denied the vision of God but did not suffer.

The latest report said: 'There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved.

'Grace has priority over sin and the exclusion of innocent babies from Heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for the little ones.'

The report added that baptism was the only way to remove original sin and urged all parents to baptise their babies.

British priest Father Paul McPartlan, who helped compile the report, added: 'We cannot say we know with certainty what will happen to unbaptised children. But we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children, and brings them to salvation.


Source: Metro 23.04.07 (which seems to be coming up with lots of fantastic Fortean-style headlines on an almost daily basis!)
 
Good. The supposed existence of Limbo caused a lot of distress to parents who lost unbaptised children.

Yeah the Metro (dublin) is a great source of foreana.
 
The downside - no more limbo dancing! :(
 
No fair :( I own property in Limbo. This will ruin the market value
 
Back
Top