Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1524519' date='May 10 2008, 09:19 PM']I know, I'm going Sola Scriptura here, but hey, that's the foundation of truth I have.
Something is being cast into the lake of fire. The last time I checked, you could only cast something that had substance, and not a state of being. Or, has all of this happened yet? Has people reigned with Christ for a 1000 years?[/quote]
I gave up the human created [i]sola scriptura[/i] doctrine more than twenty years ago, but you are free to follow it if you wish.

Literalist readings of the metaphorical language employed in the book of Revelation evince a lack of knowledge about modes of expression used in apocalyptic literature.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1524552' date='May 10 2008, 10:08 PM']See here for more information: [u][b][url="http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2006/05/disputed-question-on-limbo-positive.html"]Disputed questions on Limbo[/url][/b][/u][/quote]
The website simply presents the position of the Latin Church, and in fact the so-called [i]consensus of the Fathers[/i] presented there is hardly that, since Origen is the only Eastern author quoted, and he is not a Church Father.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='mortify' post='1524552' date='May 10 2008, 11:08 PM']KoC, I don't see how that affects the existence of limbo. Limbo is the edge of hell where infants don't suffer the pains of sense but are barred from the beatific vision because they died in a state of original sin. In other words it's not a separate abode. There is a tremendous support for the existence of limbo from Scripture, Magisterial teaching, and the teachings of the Fathers, Doctors, and Theologians.

See here for more information: [u][b][url="http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2006/05/disputed-question-on-limbo-positive.html"]Disputed questions on Limbo[/url][/b][/u][/quote]


It effects it in the since that the two, Limbus patrum, and Limbus infantium are very likened to each other. Did not Christ destory Limbus patrum? Why would Limbus patrum be destoryed only to be replaced with Limbus infantium? Which is effectively the same? Or is Limbus infantium to be thought of as some kind of left over remains of Limbus patrum? If either be the case was Christ victory of death not 100%, how could it, if part of Limbus patrum remained, or Limbus patrum replaced with Limbus infantium?

[Apotheoun]

The East has a different understanding of the nature and effects of the original sin:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/original_sin"][u]Original Sin in the Byzantine Tradition[/u][/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i mean,,, sure i've heard the angel as an entity thing now that it's been said. but, my point was that since it's unheard of, we should be cautious accepting that theory.

as my verse was intended to convey... your body cannot be thrown into an angel; it'd be thrown into a place. it could be thrown into despair, but not a spiritual being.
there are many other verses like that one that i quoted.

only that one revalation verse refers to them as beings. given that revalation is known to be metaphorical, i'd posit that we should call those verse metaphor before ignoring the other majority of other verses in the bible, and common understanding.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1524633' date='May 11 2008, 12:23 AM']well, i mean,,, sure i've heard the angel as an entity thing now that it's been said. but, my point was that since it's unheard of, we should be cautious accepting that theory.

as my verse was intended to convey... your body cannot be thrown into an angel; it'd be thrown into a place. it could be thrown into despair, but not a spiritual being.
there are many other verses like that one that i quoted.

only that one revalation verse refers to them as beings. given that revalation is known to be metaphorical, i'd posit that we should call those verse metaphor before ignoring the other majority of other verses in the bible, and common understanding.[/quote]

In a round about way - this confirms the sentience of Death and Hell.

[quote]Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

[b]Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:[/b]

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.[/quote]

The last time I checked, anybody who said they had an agreement with the Grand Canyon should be put in a nice white padded cell!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1524517' date='May 10 2008, 10:06 PM']I agree fully. And this is the problem I have with Limbo, Christ destroyed the abode of the dead by His death on the cross. For limbo to exist either Christ did not completely destroy death, or a new death was created, or something to that nature. I can not see how Christ could or would leave apart or another abode of the dead in existist when it is said He was victorious over death.[/quote]

You guys will have to explain this to because I'm a bit lost. Does hell not exist because Christ died for us? Everyone is going to heaven?

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524595' date='May 10 2008, 11:39 PM']The website simply presents the position of the Latin Church, and in fact the so-called [i]consensus of the Fathers[/i] presented there is hardly that, since Origen is the only Eastern author quoted, and he is not a Church Father.[/quote]

Jesus Christ explicitly taught that baptism is necessary for salvation and so all the Fathers taught the same. Here is St John Chrysostom's commentary on John 3:15 (which can be found [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240125.htm"][u]here[/u][/url])

(emphasis is my own)[color="#0000FF"]
"Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." What He declares is this: "You say that it is impossible, I say that it is so absolutely possible as to be necessary, and that [b]it is not even possible otherwise to be saved[/b]." For necessary things God has made exceedingly easy also.
(...)
"It is not (possible)," He says, "for one not born of water and the Spirit, to enter into the Kingdom of heaven;" because he wears the [b]raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition[/b], he has not yet received his Lord's token, he is a [b]stranger and an alien[/b], he has not the royal watchword. "Except", He says, "a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven."[/color]

KoC wrote:
[quote]It effects it in the since that the two, Limbus patrum, and Limbus infantium are very likened to each other. Did not Christ destory Limbus patrum? Why would Limbus patrum be destoryed only to be replaced with Limbus infantium? Which is effectively the same?[/quote]

Limbus Patrum is not the same as Limbus Infantium.

S. Thomas teaches: “The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell.” (ST III-Supp. 69.6)

Edited May 11, 2008 by mortify

[Apotheoun]

The Church is bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524652' date='May 11 2008, 12:02 AM']You guys will have to explain this to because I'm a bit lost. Does hell not exist because Christ died for us? Everyone is going to heaven?[/quote]
Hell only became a possibility with the incarnation, for the incarnation of the eternal Logos insures the ever-being of all mankind, but whether it is ever-well-being (i.e., heaven) or ever-ill-being (i.e., hell) is determined by each person's response to God's grace.

Below is a post on the topic of Limbo that I wrote about a year ago:

[quote]Limbus puerorum is a theological construct of the Scholastics, which was intended to answer a problem inherent to the Augustinian understanding of salvation. That said, it is important to note that St. Augustine's writings were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; and so, they had no influence at all on the doctrinal formulations of the Eastern Churches in connection with the vision of God, sacramental theology, predestination, or the nature of grace.

As far as babies being born "saved," in one sense this is true, because -- as St. Maximos taught -- all of humanity has been redeemed and given ever-being by the incarnation of the eternal Logos (cf. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 9, no. 5; and St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no. 78). But divine glory is not imparted simply by the incarnation; instead, it is given both sacramentally and by living the life of virtue. Taking into account what I have said so far, the teaching of St. Maximos (and St. Ireneaus) becomes clear, for as St. Maximos explained: "The Church knows three apokatastases. One is the [apokatastasis] of everything according to the principle (logos) of virtue; in this apokatastasis 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 apokatastasis to incorruption and immortality. The third, in the oft-cited words of Gregory of Nyssa, is the apokatastasis 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 apokatastasis, 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 apokatastasis, 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, Thalassium PG 90:796BC]

Finally, the reason that Eastern Christians reject the Scholastic notion of "limbo" is centered upon the fact that there is but one end for man, just as there is but one beginning (i.e., God). Thus, the final end of man (both of the damned and the saved) is God, but how each person experiences this end is determined by the action of their own will in synergy with the uncreated divine energy.[/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='mortify' post='1524664' date='May 11 2008, 01:26 AM']Limbus Patrum is not the same as Limbus Infantium.

S. Thomas teaches: “The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, [b]there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same[/b]; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell.” (ST III-Supp. 69.6)[/quote]

Agreed by definition they they differ, and by the quality of punishment or reward they differ. However Limbus patrum, and Limbus infantium are very likened to each other. So says the quote you have provided. Again if Christ was completely victorious over death, or Limbus patrum, how does Limbus infantium exist if in fact "the place of both is the same"?

[Jesus_lol]

i have always thought of as not so much a lake of fire, but more of a place were their is no prescence of god, which would be torturous. then what would limbo be? to me limbo isnt real with its current definition of being without the benefit of god.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524670' date='May 11 2008, 01:37 AM']Hell only became a possibility with the incarnation, for the incarnation of the eternal Logos insures the ever-being of all mankind, but whether it is ever-well-being (i.e., heaven) or ever-ill-being (i.e., hell) is determined by each person's response to God's grace.[/quote]

Maybe it's because I'm not well-versed on Eastern Catholic philosophy but the terminology is a little lost on me, I'm not sure what ever-well-being or ever-ill-being is. But basically are you saying that heaven or hell is a state of being basically and can only be decided by how one responds to grace? So with infants are they automatically in a state of ever-well-being (heaven), even though they have never (as far as we know) responded to God's grace? What, in a nutshell, is the Eastern understanding of Original sin? And how does this eliminate limbo? thanks

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524682' date='May 11 2008, 12:54 AM']Maybe it's because I'm not well-versed on Eastern Catholic philosophy but the terminology is a little lost on me, I'm not sure what ever-well-being or ever-ill-being is. . . .[/quote]
Reread my post and focus upon the words in the parentheses.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524682' date='May 11 2008, 12:54 AM']. . . But basically are you saying that heaven or hell is a state of being basically and can only be decided by how one responds to grace?[/quote]
Yes. Redemption (ever-being) is universal, while salvation (ever-well-being) or damnation (ever-ill-being) is determined by the particular response of each man to the gift of God's uncreated energies.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524682' date='May 11 2008, 12:54 AM']So with infants are they automatically in a state of ever-well-being (heaven), even though they have never (as far as we know) responded to God's grace? . . .[/quote]
God will not condemn an innocent person to hell, nor does He place him in some natural state of being, as if nature can exist in separation from God (cf. Acts 17:28).

As I said in another post:

[quote]Eastern Christians believe that an unbaptized baby receives the vision of God, but that he does not receive the glory given through baptism or through the practice of ascetic virtue. On the other hand, a baptized baby that dies receives the glory given through the sacrament, but he does not receive the glory given through the practice of ascesis. The Eastern tradition holds that there will be degrees of glory for those who participate in the vision of God, but there is no "limbo" nor is an innocent person damned.[/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]Finally, the reason that Eastern Christians reject the Scholastic notion of "limbo" is centered upon the fact that there is but one end for man, just as there is but one beginning (i.e., God). Thus, the final end of man (both of the damned and the saved) is God, but how each person experiences this end is determined by the action of their own will in synergy with the uncreated divine energy.[/quote]

So in other words, Because there is one God, there is but one place which a soul will spend entirety. Heaven or Hell.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524682' date='May 11 2008, 12:54 AM']What, in a nutshell, is the Eastern understanding of Original sin? And how does this eliminate limbo? thanks[/quote]
The original sin is a particular act of disobedience of the first man, which had the effect of making his descendents mortal. Thus, as Fr. Meyendorff explained in his book "Byzantine Theology":

[quote]There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam; in the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida; and in later Byzantine authors, particularly in Gregory Palamas. The always-more-sophisticated Maximos the Confessor, when he speaks of the consequences of the sin of Adam, identifies them mainly with the mind’s submission to the flesh and finds in sexual procreation the most obvious expression of man’s acquiescence in animal instincts; but as we have seen, sin remains, for Maximos, a personal act, and inherited guilt is impossible. For him, as for the others, "the wrong choice made by Adam brought in passion, corruption, and mortality," but not inherited guilt.

The contrast with Western tradition on this point is brought into sharp focus when Eastern authors discuss the meaning of baptism. Augustine’s arguments in favor of infant baptism were taken from the text of the creeds (baptism for "the remission of sins") and from his understanding of Romans 5:12. Children are born sinful, not because they have sinned personally, but because they have sinned "in Adam"; their baptism is therefore also a baptism "for the remission of sins." At the same time, an Eastern contemporary of Augustine’s, Theodoret of Cyrus, flatly denies that the creedal formula "for the remission of sins" is applicable to infant baptism. For Theodoret, in fact, the "remission of sins" is only a side effect of baptism, fully real in cases of adult baptism, which is the norm, of course, in the early Church and which indeed "remits sins." But the principal meaning of baptism is wider and more positive: "If the only meaning of baptism is the remission of sins," writes Theodoret, "why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it, there are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or rather it is light itself."

Thus, the Church baptizes children not to "remit" their yet nonexistent sins, but in order to give them a new and immortal life, which their mortal parents are unable to communicate to them. The opposition between the two Adams is seen in terms not of guilt and forgiveness but of death and life. "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust (the ultra-handsome); the second man is from heaven; as was the man of dust (the ultra-handsome), so are those who are of the dust (the ultra-handsome), and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:47-48). Baptism is the paschal mystery, the "passage." All its ancient forms, especially the Byzantine, include a renunciation of Satan, a triple immersion as type of death and resurrection, and the positive gift of new life through anointing and Eucharistic communion.[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1524691' date='May 11 2008, 01:14 AM']So in other words, Because there is one God, there is but one place which a soul will spend entirety. Heaven or Hell.[/quote]
I would not use the word "place" necessarily in order to describe it; instead, I would simply say that God Himself is man's end.

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524667' date='May 11 2008, 01:30 AM']The Church is bound by the sacraments, but God is not.[/quote]

Baptism is necessary in terms of means and precept, without it there is no salvation.