Pope Drops Limbo!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1250473' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:34 PM']In my experience, those who reject Vatican II are usually people not very well versed in theology who are brought into the radical traditionalist movement by others who do not know theology, but only know that they lost something they loved. I say this as one who once was nearly a rad-trad, because I did not know why the Church taught what it did.

Please learn Catholic teaching. If you do so, you will find your worldview particularly enhanced and you will be able to see the orthodox, which lies on a fine line between extremes.

God bless,

Micah[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

Let's start with the fact that AP is the source. I'd be a little more interested in actually seeing text from the source (e.g. a published Vatican document) rather than a reporter, who may be looking for ways to sell an exciting story to his readers.

Looking at some other links in google news, another reporter is claiming that Pope Benedict "announced that Purgatory itself is baloney". Forgive me, but I am not convinced that these reporters are reliable for accurately describing Papal statements.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1250499' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:49 PM']Let's start with the fact that AP is the source. I'd be a little more interested in actually seeing text from the source (e.g. a published Vatican document) rather than a reporter, who may be looking for ways to sell an exciting story to his readers.

Looking at some other links in google news, another reporter is claiming that Pope Benedict "announced that Purgatory itself is baloney". Forgive me, but I am not convinced that these reporters are reliable for accurately describing Papal statements.[/quote]
actually, the news story is less sensational in its telling of the story than our friend St. B.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1250501' date='Apr 20 2007, 06:50 PM']actually, the news story is less sensational in its telling of the story than our friend St. B.[/quote]I guess everyone has an agenda...

[Aloysius]

no matter what, there definitely is a place which can be properly called "limbo". "limbo" merely means "edge", and there definitely is an edge to hell where there is least punishment. I like to think that place is one where there is no active punishment through the pain of sense but merely the punishment of the loss of the Beatific Vision. The question is: who goes there. It seems to me there is a category of people who are not deemed cupable for any actual sin but have original sin keeping them from the beatific vision. I think of inculpably ignorant just people who do not acheive a baptism of desire but are also not deemed culpable for their actual sins because they were committed in inculpable ignorance, because such people would seem to me to be in a situation equivalent to that of the Just Jews of the Old Covenant. Anyway, this commission was discussing whether unbaptized infants go there; it concluded that we can hope for their salvation.

Apotheoun, is man's nature ordered towards the beatific vision? It is my understanding that man's nature is not; but that Christ lifted us above our nature. Is not the Beatific Vision a super-natural end and thus not man's natural end?

I understand the disagreement about "perfect natural hapiness" and I specifically avoided that statement here, because I have an understanding of supernaturally-bestowed hapiness of some sort, which is called "relative natural hapiness", to those who go to limbo, just not the hapiness and fulfillment that comes from the Beatific Vision.

This particular news story is less sensational, but there are tons of news stories, blogs, and common everyday street discussions labeling this "the pope dropped limbo". I can understand why one would think that's what happened.

Era, I do like the idea of the babies receiving a choice like the choice of the Angels and thus possibly going one way or the other (and if they went the other, they would go the the edge of hell having had no actual sins committed in a mortal life). I think I proposed that as a possibility last time this discussion came up; yet I place the time of their choice as being at the Last Judgement (I always thought it'd be very elegant and balanced if Christ's first coming freed the limbo of the fathers and gave them a choice and His second coming freed the limbo of the infants and gave them a choice).

[Moneybags]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1250473' date='Apr 20 2007, 05:34 PM']In my experience, those who reject Vatican II are usually people not very well versed in theology who are brought into the radical traditionalist movement by others who do not know theology, but only know that they lost something they loved. I say this as one who once was nearly a rad-trad, because I did not know why the Church taught what it did.

Please learn Catholic teaching. If you do so, you will find your worldview particularly enhanced and you will be able to see the orthodox, which lies on a fine line between extremes.

God bless,

Micah[/quote]

And this is coming from an ex-seminarian? Sorry, but I think it would be better to follow the advice of honest, holy priests including those on Phatmass.

Edited April 20, 2007 by St. Benedict

[Era Might]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1250499' date='Apr 20 2007, 05:49 PM']Let's start with the fact that AP is the source. I'd be a little more interested in actually seeing text from the source (e.g. a published Vatican document) rather than a reporter, who may be looking for ways to sell an exciting story to his readers.

Looking at some other links in google news, another reporter is claiming that Pope Benedict "announced that Purgatory itself is baloney". Forgive me, but I am not convinced that these reporters are reliable for accurately describing Papal statements.[/quote]
I haven't seen the document, but I don't think it is from the Magisterium, but a theological commission. The Holy Father may have given his support, but I don't think it is from the Magisterium specifically. I'm not sure though, I haven't seen it on the Vatican website.

And this is absolutely false what Fr. McBrien says in the article.

[quote]"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response[/quote]It is not all we are left with, and we know that we are all born in original sin, not in a state of grace. This is a basic dogma of the Church. Even if there is no limbo, it doesn't mean that we are born in a state of grace, but that God restores us to his grace in a different way.

[quote]The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church, #389[/quote]

[Aloysius]

That's the type of stuff that concerns me here. If we're going to start making the "official speculation" more in line with hoping for their salvation, we have to make it clear that the idea is a way in which their original sin is cleansed post-mortum (or perhaps, I guess some paradigm could admit it as prior to death in some way). I'd really love to see the official speculation try to differentiate between the particular and final judgement and talking about original sin keeping all who are in possession of it out of heaven, these two things (but the latter alone would do) would be very good to pull the emphasis back to the necessity of the sacraments, the necessity of God's grace even for a baby whose nature is already damaged by original sin, and the idea that we do not have a right to heaven and God is not required to give it to people just because we think He should.

What this commission has produced is now the current "official speculation" in the same way limbo used to be the "official speculation"; that's how I use that term.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1250501' date='Apr 20 2007, 06:50 PM']actually, the news story is less sensational in its telling of the story than our friend St. B.[/quote]


[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1250551' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:14 PM']I guess everyone has an agenda... [/quote]


[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1250581' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:28 PM']And this is coming from an ex-seminarian? Sorry, but I think it would be better to follow the advice of honest, holy priests including those on Phatmass.[/quote]

Let's not let this thread get as personal as the other ones were getting! This topic is too important and INTERESTING

Personally I think this situation is interesting because it demonstrates the various levels of infallibility in the Church... Limbo was perhaps more of a generally accepted theological speculation than a plain-old, solid-oak "doctrine", while this latest statement comes from a Vatican commission and not from the Magisterium per se, and so also has limits on its infallibility.

[Mateo el Feo]

For those who have a copy of Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," the relevant text starts on page 113. He refers to both the Council of Lyons and John 3:5. The "De Fide" statement is:[quote]Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.[/quote]

Page 114 has an interesting discussion, talking about "[i]poena damni[/i]" vs. "[i]poena sensus[/i]."

[Pontifex]

Baptism is the primary means by which we experience the power of Jesus Christ to remove original sin. The Church teaches that one can be baptized by water, blood, or desire. Since an infant or a pre-born baby hasn't the ability to choose or desire anything but sustenance from his/her mother, it is ridiculous to think anything other than that Child is with God.

Limbo, as the Pope says, had the purpose of upholding the importance and centrality of Baptism for faith.

But it fails miserably in giving comfort to a Mother that gives birth to a still born baby. Seriously, until you have been in the hospital room with a Mother like that who is looking to you for an answer you don't know what you are talking about.

I do not agree that moving away from Limbo as a theological construct does anything to move away from the importance of Baptism, and the salvific plan of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church. It does nothing to give anyone a free ticket to Heaven who has the ability to excercise free will.

Think about it. God has this all worked out.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Pontifex

[Pontifex]

Furthermore,

I do not want to make it sound as if I am tampering with the Church's teaching on Original Sin. (I would never do that.)

It is my personal belief that it is the through the Merits of Jesus Christ and the power of the Mass being offered all over the world for all souls salvation, that plays a part somehow in this question. I cannot articulate to that, but I feel it when I celebrate the mass.

Peace.

[philosophette]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1250581' date='Apr 20 2007, 06:28 PM']And this is coming from an ex-seminarian? Sorry, but I think it would be better to follow the advice of honest, holy priests including those on Phatmass.[/quote]

Whoa, St B, that is mean. Just because someone used to be a seminarian does not mean that they are a bad person! Seminary is a place of discerning God's will and if Micah discerned God did not want him to be a priest he should be applauded for his docility to the Holy Spirit and not put down.

Now, back to the topic.

Edited April 20, 2007 by philosobrat

[cappie]

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 20, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Be[b]nedict XVI authorized the publication of a [u][i]report[/i][/u] that expresses the hope that babies who die without baptism are able to get to heaven.[/b]

The report by the International Theological Commission, published today, concluded that there are serious theological and liturgical grounds for the hope that such babies are saved and enjoy the beatific vision.

The commission says the theological hypothesis of "limbo" appeared to be based on an unduly restrictive view of salvation.

The 41-page document noted this is an "urgent pastoral problem," especially because of the large number of unbaptized babies who die as victims of abortion.

[b]The commission's documents are not considered official expressions of the magisterium. But the commission does help the Holy See to examine important doctrinal issues.[/b]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in No. 1261 explains: "As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.

"Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.

"All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism."

Edited April 20, 2007 by cappie

[kateri05]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1250587' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:32 PM']"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response[/quote]





how is this guy allowed to preach and teach?!? this is a blatant disregard for the teaching of the Church, with his name, position and university attached. could someone do SOMETHING to give this man consequences?!??


this is why so many catholics know NOTHING about their faith, because people like this, who one would assume they can trust by virtue of his office, make things up!

/hijack

Edited April 20, 2007 by kateri05

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1250575' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:26 PM'][. . .]

Apotheoun, is man's nature ordered towards the beatific vision? It is my understanding that man's nature is not; but that Christ lifted us above our nature. Is not the Beatific Vision a super-natural end and thus not man's natural end?

I understand the disagreement about "perfect natural hapiness" and I specifically avoided that statement here, because I have an understanding of supernaturally-bestowed hapiness of some sort, which is called "relative natural hapiness", to those who go to limbo, just not the hapiness and fulfillment that comes from the Beatific Vision.

[. . .][/quote]
Yes, the Eastern Fathers teach that man's nature is ordered to the vision of God. Grace and nature are not identical, but grace (i.e., the divine energy) is intrinsic to man, and not extrinsic to him. Moreover, the [i]eikon Theô[/i], which is natural to man and was given to him at the time of creation, was not lost or damaged in the fall; instead, man's assimilation ([i]omoíosis[/i]) to God, which is a personal reality, was disfigured by the introduction of death and corruption (i.e., the dissolving of created existence). Thus, as St. Maximos the Confessor teaches:

"The Church knows three [i]apokatastaseis[/i]. One is the [[i]apokatastasis[/i]] of everything according to the principle ([i]logos[/i]) of virtue; in this [i]apokatastasis[/i] one is restored who fulfills the principle of virtue in himself. The second is that of the whole [human nature] in the Resurrection. This is the [i]apokatastasis[/i] to incorruption and immortality. The third, in the oft-cited words of Gregory of Nyssa, is the [i]apokatastasis[/i] of the powers of the soul which, having lapsed into sin, are again restored to that condition in which they were created. For it is necessary that just as the entire nature of the flesh hopes in time to be taken up again into incorruption in the [i]apokatastasis[/i], so also the powers of the soul, having become distorted during the course of the ages had instilled in it a memory of evil, so that at the end of ages, not finding any rest, will come to God Who has no limit. And thus the distorted powers of the soul will be taken up into the primeval [i]apokatastasis[/i], into a merely discursive knowledge of, but not into the participation in, the good things [of God], where the Creator is known yet without being the cause of [their] sin." [St. Maximos, [i]Thalassium[/i] PG 90:796BC]

Now, in order to understand the doctrine of [i]apokatastasis[/i] properly it is vital that one make a real distinction between person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) and nature ([i]physis[/i]), because all of human nature has been restored through the incarnation and resurrection of the eternal Logos, and is thus given ever-being; but only the man whose will is conformed to virtue through the power of the divine energy, or who has not intentionally obstructed the action of God's deifying energy, will receive ever-well-being (i.e., the vision of God), while the man who lives a life of evil will receive ever-ill-being (i.e., damnation).

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is vital that one make a real distinction between nature ([i]physis[/i]), which is and remains good even after the ancestral sin, and person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), because to fail to do so leads inexorably to Christological errors. Christ assumes a complete human nature identical to our own, and -- as a consequence -- sin cannot be natural or Christ would have been sinful. Sin is found in the personal ([i]hypostatic[/i]) enactment of the natural will, and not in the natural capacity of the will itself (cf. the Christological teaching of Chalcedon and Constantinople III).

[Moneybags]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1250659' date='Apr 20 2007, 07:40 PM']Whoa, St B, that is mean. Just because someone used to be a seminarian does not mean that they are a bad person! Seminary is a place of discerning God's will and if Micah discerned God did not want him to be a priest he should be applauded for his docility to the Holy Spirit and not put down.

Now, back to the topic.[/quote]

I just mean to say that I am very cautious in who to listen to anymore. So many Catholics teach different things. For example, most Catholics I know personally don't even go to Confession or believe in it. I am just trying to be very cautious on who to listen to. Therefore, I have decided to not change my opinion based on that of other laymen because many of them can be in error. I have decided to listen to the words of holy, orthodox priests, my own, those in my diocese, and those on this phorum.

I made that statement based on these words:

[quote]In my experience, those who reject Vatican II are usually people not very well versed in theology who are brought into the radical traditionalist movement by others who do not know theology, but only know that they lost something they loved. I say this as one who once was nearly a rad-trad, because I did not know why the Church taught what it did.

Please learn Catholic teaching. If you do so, you will find your worldview particularly enhanced and you will be able to see the orthodox, which lies on a fine line between extremes.[/quote]

The only way to ensure that I am being taught the truth is to learn it from an orthodox, traditional priest

Now that I read my comment to Micah, I see that is does seem rather harsh. I didn't intend it that way. This is one reason that I prefer physical communication so much better. Via the Internet we can't see one another's physical expression, voice, etc.

Edited April 21, 2007 by St. Benedict

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1250361' date='Apr 20 2007, 03:51 PM']No, the Church is not now in error.

Limbo is not a defined truth of faith, it is a theological hypothesis. The Holy Father addressed this while he was still Cardinal in "The Ratzinger Report":[/quote]

I was about to write that. Great book.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1250436' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:56 PM']The dropping of "limbo" by Pope Benedict brings Roman teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants into line with the Eastern Christian tradition, which never accepted the idea in the first place.[/quote]

woot-woot!!!!! I never understood how limbo fits into a proper systematic soteriological model. I often think that a lil aprophatic respect to what we can not know for certain would be very valuable.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1250438' date='Apr 20 2007, 04:59 PM']Oh, and I will note: bringing Roman Traditions into line with Eastern Traditions is not necessarily good; just like bringing Eastern Traditions into line with Roman Tradtions would not necessarily be good.[/quote]

WHy?

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1250447' date='Apr 20 2007, 05:08 PM']Yes, unbaptized infants participate in the vision of God, because hell (a.k.a., the second death) requires that a person enact his will in opposition to God by committing sins.

Moreover, since the Eastern Fathers reject the idea that there is a "state of pure nature," it follows that anyone who has not sinned personally will receive the vision of God, because there is no state of existence without the divine energy. In other words, glory is given to all men through the incarnation of the eternal Logos, and it is only removed or given in greater degree by acts of the personal will of man. Finally, it should be noted that the Eastern tradition sees the vision of God (i.e., [i]theosis[/i]) as an unending process that stretches forever into eternity, because participation in grace (i.e., the uncreated divine energy) is a dynamic and not a static reality.[/quote]

Augustine is quoted with the idea that unborn babies are going to hell. But I think in a proper augustinian context we can understand that our only natural and supernatural ending is with the Divine. Hell isnt the default, it requires action. Heaven requires action. If someone is not able to "Act" then are we in a position to claim knowledge on it?

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1250581' date='Apr 20 2007, 06:28 PM']And this is coming from an ex-seminarian? Sorry, but I think it would be better to follow the advice of honest, holy priests including those on Phatmass.[/quote]

Raphel is one of the more devoited and honest teachers of the faith that I have ever met. I am rather sure that the honest and holy priests that you cite here at phatmass think very highly of Raphel.

[N/A Gone]

****
side note, is it wrong that the deeper I dig in my faith the more I feel pulled to the eastern tradition? Yet my biggest influence is Augustine. That is weird. I blame you Todd


/rant

[Apotheoun]

Augustine had no real impact on the theology of the Eastern Churches. In fact, his writings were not even translated into Greek until the 14th century.