Theologians to ask Pope to suspend limbo?

[son_of_angels]

Personally, this is what I think. There are two states of being out of perfect communion with God, Purgatory and Hell. The first is for those who simply have a perfectible nature, but did not do so in life, while the latter is for those who have a nature unable to be perfected.

In my opinion, where someone has died without the POSSIBILITY of committing mortal sin, e.g. an aborted baby, someone mentally retarded, then it seems likely that their nature is in some way perfectible. Hence, they may go to Purgatory. The problem is that they never received Baptism, so there is no promise for reconciliation with God after death, so there in Purgatory they shall remain, awaiting the hope of Christ's final coming, when they shall be permitted to enter into the New Jerusalem.

Where someone without Baptism dies, while yet having the possibility of committing mortal sin, and where it is probable that they did so (for otherwise we would be saying one could be perfect without grace, which seems Semi-Pelagian to me) then it seems likely that they are in Hell suffering according to the nature afforded them.

Hence I am not completely opposed to the notion of Limbo, not as a place, but as a state of one's soul which is then divided into those Limbo souls who are in purgatory, and those souls who are in Hell. All who die without Baptism, and without the knowledge to be baptized, are in this non-substantial state of limbo, and are judged by God. Hence, if any of them commit mortal sin, their damnation rests on us.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Dec 2 2005, 11:49 AM']Limbo would contradict the fact that God is a merciful God.  He's too stringent on the rules to let the most innocent into heaven before they even had the ability to commit sin, so he puts them in an eternal play-crib.
[right][snapback]808394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'd like to know where the concept that mercy is defined by being lenient on just rules?

people who are in a state of original sin will, upon facing their maker, hide from Him. just like Adam and Eve did. they committed an actual sin, yes, but it was not the actual sin that caused them to hid from God-- it was the deficiency in their nature that they had just caused.

anyone with a fallen nature is attracted to the absence of God and the existence of themselves apart from Him. that's the nature of original sin.

[son_of_angels]

bump

[Aloysius]

just to be clear, these are unbaptized people who have a fallen nature that leads them to hide from God who are not culpable for any actual sin they may have committed. they cannot enter into the purification process unless God restores their fallen nature through some sort of crazy extraordinary means that we don't know about, that He hasn't felt necessary to reveal to us. But under the normal conditions we know God to operate under, with His Justice and Mercy, those people (even if they be infants) would completely justly left out of the beatific vision, because they have a fallen nature.

[tojo]

*observing with interest*

[Ash Wednesday]

I never thought limbo was ever actually in the catechism or considered definitive teaching -- just a theory and subject of speculation that floated up somewhere along the way in history.

The only thing that I would see as problematic is saying something like "babies that die before being baptised [i]automatically[/i] go to heaven" -- something like that came up in the news and it seemed like a red flag to me, because that would undermine the need for baptism -- and heck, people would use that to justify abortion and cloning.

I recall the catechism saying something about entrusting the unbaptised to the mercy of God but not making assumptions one way or another (I don't recall it mentioning limbo, either, but it's 4:30 a.m. and I'm zoned out.) It seems to me that it's always been the right route to not assume the state of someone's soul since only God is able to know such a thing.

Maybe that's why they would suggest dropping limbo to the pope...? I don't know. BXVI is the theologian, he'll figure it out.


Ack, I'm putting off my term's end work.

[Aloysius]

in the index of the catechism, you'll find the term "limbo" and it refers you to the catechism number you're referring to.

[tojo]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 4 2005, 11:24 PM']it seems to me that it's always been the right route to not assume the state of someone's soul since only God is able to know such a thing.
[right][snapback]811114[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:28 AM']awwww. I didn't mean it like that. I put in the word "actually" mainly because I thought people might be surprised that I don't accept the theory of limbo. Because I fancy myself a traditionalist, and traditionalists most often accept this theory. But maybe I'm deluded; maybe people don't perceive me as a traditionalist at all. Maybe I'm seen as a progressive..

I need to make a poll and see how people around here think of me.
[right][snapback]808204[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, you're a wild progressive...

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 4 2005, 09:41 PM']in the index of the catechism, you'll find the term "limbo" and it refers you to the catechism number you're referring to.
[right][snapback]811154[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ah, I see -- well it was 4:30 in the morning and on the brink of term's end when I posted that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 4 2005, 09:41 PM']in the index of the catechism, you'll find the term "limbo" and it refers you to the catechism number you're referring to.
[right][snapback]811154[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's funny that the index uses the word limbo, but the text itself never does. Rather, the statement made in the catechism could be seen as undermining limbo theory. Limbo theory claims to explain the fate of unbaptized infants, whereas the CCC appears to leave the question open ended.

But its been a while since I read that part of the CCC.. Hopefully my impression is true. If I'm way off please refute me somebody.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 03:18 AM']I actually agree. Limbo is a theory that doesn't work. I will discuss/debate the matter with anyone who disagrees if they're interested.
[right][snapback]808096[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We have already been down this road. Let me stress that I vehemntly disagree with you on this one.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Let me voice some ideas as a former Catholic and as someone attempting to stay in the realms of Catholic theological boundaries.

I wonder though. If heaven is with God and hell is without God, what's limbo? Is it beyond compreshension? (cause I can image the other two to a degree)

First let me say I would agree with Limbo from a Catholic perspective. To say they have heaven is not just because they have not earned it through grace. To say they have hell is not just because they have not forfeited it. To say that limbo will be "open" at the second coming doesn't mean a whole lot: what does "open" mean? Will the justness all the sudden not matter and they will be cast to heaven or hell? More on this later though.

The idea of them going to purgatory might at first glance be an option. Purgatory is where you develop... but it's where you develop into heaven. Some may have not ever been destined to heaven.

One option is that they live in a life other than this after they die, not reincarnation, but in another world, to determine their choice to accept God or not.

I think probably the best idea that most could agree with is that God knows what that person would have done in their life, and judges them accordingly. I suppose this process is limbo, but to call it limbo might be a cop out to those who do not agree with limbo because it's instantaneous. So really, with this scenario, to call it limbo or not is more the question. With this teory, Some might argue that the person never had the chance to fall voluntarly, but it's really not changing anything, and given the situation that ended their life, something needs to occur I'd think. As for limbo opening, maybe this judgement happens then, though I see no reason for it to be then and not when they die, unless you want to stick to that bible quote about the first coming and keep it tied to that, though I might argue after the first coming, limbo was no longer needed and the God know what the person would have done argument could be used.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 9 2005, 11:25 AM']It's funny that the index uses the word limbo, but the text itself never does. Rather, the statement made in the catechism could be seen as undermining limbo theory. Limbo theory claims to explain the fate of unbaptized infants, whereas the CCC appears to leave the question open ended.

But its been a while since I read that part of the CCC.. Hopefully my impression is true. If I'm way off please refute me somebody.
[right][snapback]818291[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Okay! So I wasn't totally spaced out, because I never recalled limbo being really specifically drawn out in the Catechism itself. That might explain why I felt sketchy about it. Thanks for clarifying that, LD!





Now if I could find my Catechism... I have misplaced it -- somewhere around here in my postage stamp room.

[Socrates]

That's a shame.

The limbo was fun, though I never could go very low.