Lose limbo, but salvage purgatory

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I support Limbo.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 1 2005, 05:21 PM']I support Limbo.
[right][snapback]807431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's a matter of speculation not doctrine, so I can respect that. And you aren't alone Sam. There are plenty of brilliant theologians on your side. Just from the research I've done, I can't accept it. It's possible I will be convinced otherwise as I learn more.

God bless.

[Paphnutius]

Everyone knows that The Inferno is not doctrine, but anyone having flashbacks of the first few cantos?

Edited December 1, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Laudate_Dominum]

hehehe

[Aloysius]

I believe in an edge to the abode of the dead (limbo) and that people inculpable of any actual sin but still with the fallen nature of Adam go there. it needn't be locked in as eternal.

it is almost like LIMBO:HELL::PURGATORY:HEAVEN

except when Christ comes to free souls from limbo (not saying that this will necessarily happen at the second coming, but he did it at His first coming so this is from observation) He then offers them the choice between heaven and hell, whereas the only destination after purgatory is heaven. also, purgatory consists of progression, ongoing purification. limbo is just the soul existing in its fallen nature without any actual sin it is culpable for.

perhaps there will be official condemnation of an eternal limbo concept? hmmmmmm

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Limbo does not make sense to me in light of Papal statements from the last 200 years regarding the possibility for invincibly ignorant people to be saved. They seem to be too certain to allow for a limbo.

Another interesting thing to think about is the concept of time outside this existence. Christ descended into "sheol" and preached - because of the eternal nature of the afterlife, could he still in a sense be in "sheol" preaching? Would saying he has left be putting a time constraint on Christ? Anyone know what I'm saying?

[Aloysius]

most of the statements are on the possibility of non-damnation for the inculpably ignorant. speculation of their possible salvation come up more recently, and it is all speculation and it clearly says that we know of no means by which God could wipe away original sin, the speculation is that hopefully maybe possibly there's some means that God has not revealed to us. that's about it.

since Limbo is the edge of the abode of the dead (look up the etymology of the word, that's what it means) it is basically before the exit from time and entering into eternity, well, at least that's what the limbo of the fathers was. the theological speculation of the medievals is that all of the abode of the dead was locked into eternity. I don't hold that view, it is a period of complete rest, no progress or digress, but simply absolute complete waiting, time progresses.

there are parts of the abode of the dead that are not outside of time, namely purgatory (for no change can come about without time) and I would argue that limbo is still not in eternity.

[son_of_angels]

The problem here though is that Original Sin IS ACTUAL SIN, which damns one ever bit as much as mortal sin. Read my post in the other limbo thread.

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 1 2005, 05:01 PM']There are many versions of limbo theory in Roman Catholic theology. Some see and attempt to resolve this problem.
[. . .]
It's been a while since I've thought about the subject, but the conclusion I reached long ago was that limbo is absurd.
[right][snapback]807395[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I came to the same conclusion...


...but without all that tedious thinking nonsense.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

so if Limbo does not exist all the unbaptized babies, etc. go to hell?

wouldn't babies be invincibly ignorant?

[philothea]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 2 2005, 07:43 PM']so if Limbo does not exist all the unbaptized babies, etc. go to hell?

wouldn't babies be invincibly ignorant?
[right][snapback]808869[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of course babies are invincibly ignorant. If anyone is, they are.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

well than if they are invincibley (sp?) than why would they go to limbo?

am i thought the ignorant went to heaven?

[Aloysius]

original sin and actual sin are two different concepts. actual sin refers to sins committed by an individual, original sin refers to the fallen state we are born in as a result of the sin of adam and eve.

original sin prevents us from going to heaven. but we are not necessarily deserving of any active punishments such as the pains of eternal hellfire.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 2 2005, 08:00 PM']original sin prevents us from going to heaven.  but we are not necessarily deserving of any active punishments such as the pains of eternal hellfire.
[/quote]
We share in the other "active punishments" do we not? The result of the fall.

[Aloysius]

I'm talking about true absolute punishment, the point at which punishment is not intended to reform but intended for absolute pure justice. that is, I'm speaking of eternal punishment. someone who is not culpable for any actual sin does not necessarily deserve this eternal punishment.

when I said "[i]active[/i] punishment" I intended to distinguish that from a sort of [i]passive[/i] punishment, that someone would be left in their fallen nature. there is no active punishment put on them, the only punishment is in leaving them alone, a sort of passive punishment.

God actually positively punishes the people in the hell of eternal damnation, because it satisfies absolute justice, love of good, and hatred for the twisting of good (or evil).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Second Vatican Council teaches that the Holy Spirit makes the necessary graces for salvation available to all in some way. It seems like if everyone had the chance, there wouldn't be an "intermediate" zone such as limbo because nobody would qualify. You either accepted the graces or did not. Heaven or Hell.
[url="http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html#v2"]http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html#v2[/url]

[Aloysius]

I really hope you're not considering me a feenyist over my support for limbo

anyway, that everyone is offered sufficient grace is true. but circumstances make a person not culpable for not responding to that grace offered, thus the definition of the inculpably ignorant or the invincibly ignorant-- who we are talking about.

so if a person is not culpable for not responding to the grace and being baptized, he falls into this category.

the fact that sufficient grace is offered does not mean that it is offered post-mortum for the restoring of fallen nature.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 2 2005, 09:32 PM']I really hope you're not considering me a feenyist over my support for limbo
[right][snapback]808932[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There are plenty of Catholics in good standing who support limbo theory. Don't worry. I thought I was the one who was over the top.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Definately not a Feeneyist. I just wanted to reference the quotes from Vatican II and they happened to be neatly layed out on my Feeneyism page. Sorry.

I guess I have a different vision of the grace being offered. I almost think of it as following the law written on the heart in making moral decisions. In my way of thinking (maybe I'm wrong), everyone has responded to the grace by the actions they choose.

Edited December 3, 2005 by thedude

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 2 2005, 09:04 PM']I'm talking about true absolute punishment, the point at which punishment is not intended to reform but intended for absolute pure justice. [/quote]
Okay. Just usally when people say "such as" they are distinguishing one from a group of that one kind, meaning that there would have been more active punishments here than hell.

[quote]when I said "[i]active[/i] punishment" I intended to distinguish that from a sort of [i]passive[/i] punishment, that someone would be left in their fallen nature.  there is no active punishment put on them, the only punishment is in leaving them alone, a sort of passive punishment.[/quote] Was man not made to have to till the soil and live be the sweat of his own brow? What about the labor pains of the woman. The relationship of man to God, man to man, and man to nature were rent assundure appear to be more than just a leaving alone. All of these could be understand as a result of the absence of God's presence that we once had, but they could also appear to be more than simply that. Specifcially the labor pains of women seem to be an active and inflicted punishment more than just a leaving to self.

I understand your point, do not get me wrong, but I think that holding such a view one could down play that consequences of the Fall.

[quote]the fact that sufficient grace is offered does not mean that it is offered post-mortum for the restoring of fallen nature.[/quote]I think that would be shakey ground my friend. If I am understanding you correctly, you are stating that those that die inculpably ignorant may be justified after death?