Limbo as Dogma?

[Greg72]

You are right — Card. Ratzinger expressed his opinion (before he ascended to the papacy) .

Are you suggesting that his opinion has changed?
I’d love to see the evidence of that.

JPII was not infallible in each and every word—and this **will not **change even if he is beatified.

Then why put so much stock in what the Saints said as opposed to these mere modern Popes?

You speak of the next logical step being God does not deny heaven-----but who really is doing the speaking. A persons own desire — to manipulate in order to have God do what they want.

You tell me. How does this sound -

“Your unbaptized child is in hell, but don’t worry - it’s not the same place in hell as murderers go to. It’s right on the border - we’ll call it Limbo. Your child will still never behold the face of God, but at least he won’t be tortured.”

Who rules hell, anyway? Would he make such a distinction?

Why would God not quite save someone?

The idea of Limbo is problematic to say the least.
That might be why the Church has never taught it in the true sense.

zenit.org/article-17840?l=english
Room for God

“He who speaks in theology should be God himself,” said the Pope. “And our speaking and thinking should only serve to have him heard, so that the world of God can find room in the world.”

Gotta love the Pope.
He wouldn’t have come up with the idea of Limbo in the first place.

 

[marci]

How come everyone is so quick to accept the personal opinions of the two most recent Popes when there is a far greater number of Popes who have explicitly taught Limbo?

Why are you so quick to dismiss them?

Are we not told over and over that even though a pope may not be speaking “from the chair” we are still to give his opinions careful consideration and prayerful contemplation, or does that only apply if one agrees with him?

The church used to teach that the reason why masturbation was such an evil for a male was because they believed the sperm contained the seed–the complete and whole body and soul of the child–the woman was merely an oven that “cooked” the bun.

Science’s understanding of this has obviously changed, so the church has evolved as well in it’s understanding of conception and it’s teachings, thereof. Masturbation in still a grave sin, but because of the disordered act, but not because the “seed” is being spilled.

Another evolution has been the teaching on suicide. We used to be taught that suicide would give us a direct ticket to Hell. Since our understanding of the brain and mental disorders has increased, we now know that certain suicides can not be held accountable because of the possiblity of mental disturbance and , therefore, are not responsible. (That is not to say that they are not held accountable for any prior mortal sins, but that the suicide act itself may not be mortal)

Who’s to say which pope or theologian we should listen to? If we go down the road of second guessing and pitting one of them against the other, then where will that lead. You might as well join with the Orthodox. I myself have been guilty of this in the past, but no more. I can see now how dangerous this is. One should not pick and choose which pope’s opinion to embrace, because more often then not they choose the one that most models their own view.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home

You are right — Card. Ratzinger expressed his opinion (before he ascended to the papacy) . JPII was not infallible in each and every word—and this will not change even if he is beatified.

You speak of the next logical step being God does not deny heaven-----but who really is doing the speaking. A persons own desire — to manipulate in order to have God do what they want.

You tell me. How does this sound -

“Your unbaptized child is in hell, but don’t worry - it’s not the same place in hell as murderers go to. It’s right on the border - we’ll call it Limbo. Your child will still never behold the face of God, but at least he won’t be tortured.”
Who rules hell, anyway? Would he make such a distinction?

Why would God not quite save someone?

The idea of Limbo is problematic to say the least.
That might be why the Church has never taught it in the true sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
zenit.org/article-17840?l=english
Room for God

“He who speaks in theology should be God himself,” said the Pope. “And our speaking and thinking should only serve to have him heard, so that the world of God can find room in the world.”

Gotta love the Pope.
He wouldn’t have come up with the idea of Limbo in the first place.

---

My mother accepted by faith --that her two stillborn babies were in limbo. This is what she and those who came before her were taught and believed. That these babies were not suffering in the hell of the damned – but by way of God’s mercy — lived in happiness in limbo.

You ask why God would not save someone. This leads back to questioning God Himself —and within this-- trying to manipulate God — to do what we desire of Him.

As to the “idea” of limbo being problematic and the Church “not teaching it in the true sense”. Generations of people have passed --who would dispute the “new ideology”-- that limbo was not taught in the true sense.

Yes – gotta love the Pope. He more than likey made some “theologians” squirm when he told them to not prostitute themselves for popular opinion and that it should be God Himself speaking in theology.

 

[Greg72]

My mother accepted by faith --that her two stillborn babies were in limbo. This is what she and those who came before her were taught and believed. That these babies were not suffering in the hell of the damned – but by way of God’s mercy — lived in happiness in limbo.

How can there be happiness for a human being apart from God?

You ask why God would not save someone.

Close - I asked why God would “not quite” save someone.
That whole idea just doesn’t make sense to me.
I get purgatory (an actual teaching of the Church) - that we might have to be purified before we enter His presence, but Limbo makes no sense - not really saved, not really damned - God can’t make up His mind? Would people in Limbo be like dogs that aren’t allowed in the house?

The Church teaches that although God has given us rules, He is not bound by them. He is God almighty and He wants every one of us in His presence. If we aren’t baptised, or if we kill ourselves, that needn’t be an obstacle to Him. If, in our pride, we refuse to repent, then there’s no hope.

This leads back to questioning God Himself —and within this-- trying to manipulate God — to do what we desire of Him.

That’s exactly what I believe Limbo arose from. People were no longer comfortable with the idea of unbaptized children in hell, so all of a sudden out comes the theory of Limbo (which I believe happened to be a small step in the right direction).

As to the “idea” of limbo being problematic and the Church “not teaching it in the true sense”. Generations of people have passed --who would dispute the “new ideology”-- that limbo was not taught in the true sense.

The fact that so many failed to distinguish between an actual teaching and a widely-held belief (I failed to distinguish, myself), doesn’t change the belief into an actual teaching.

Yes – gotta love the Pope. He more than likey made some “theologians” squirm when he told them to not prostitute themselves for popular opinion and that it should be God Himself speaking in theology.

Well, that’s at least one thing that we strongly agree on

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
My mother accepted by faith --that her two stillborn babies were in limbo. This is what she and those who came before her were taught and believed. That these babies were not suffering in the hell of the damned – but by way of God’s mercy — lived in happiness in limbo.

How can there be happiness for a human being apart from God?

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
You ask why God would not save someone.

Close - I asked why God would “not quite” save someone.
That whole idea just doesn’t make sense to me.
I get purgatory (an actual teaching of the Church) - that we might have to be purified before we enter His presence, but Limbo makes no sense - not really saved, not really damned - God can’t make up His mind? Would people in Limbo be like dogs that aren’t allowed in the house?

The Church teaches that although God has given us rules, He is not bound by them. He is God almighty and He wants every one of us in His presence. If we aren’t baptised, or if we kill ourselves, that needn’t be an obstacle to Him. If, in our pride, we refuse to repent, then there’s no hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
This leads back to questioning God Himself —and within this-- trying to manipulate God — to do what we desire of Him.

That’s exactly what I believe Limbo arose from. People were no longer comfortable with the idea of unbaptized children in hell, so all of a sudden out comes the theory of Limbo (which I believe happened to be a small step in the right direction).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
As to the “idea” of limbo being problematic and the Church “not teaching it in the true sense”. Generations of people have passed --who would dispute the “new ideology”-- that limbo was not taught in the true sense.

The fact that so many failed to distinguish between an actual teaching and a widely-held belief (I failed to distinguish, myself), doesn’t change the belief into an actual teaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Yes – gotta love the Pope. He more than likey made some “theologians” squirm when he told them to not prostitute themselves for popular opinion and that it should be God Himself speaking in theology.

Well, that’s at least one thing that we strongly agree on

---

Because the unbaptised are in limbo does not mean they are apart from God. God’s mercy in providing for them happiness says they are not apart from Him.

Would not save or not quite save—it makes no difference. It still falls back to questioning God and trying to infuse our own desires and manipulate God into what we wish.

You say that many failed to distinguish between an actual teaching and a widely held belief. No --it has been the holders and promoters of this “new ideology” of these last years that are turning the actual teaching of limbo – which came down from and thru the Church Herself to countless generations— into nothing other than some form of “widely held belief”.

 

[Walking_Home]

One of the reasons is because they are the most recent.

I believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding us towards Truth.

---

Well now—maybe the saying that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth — needs to be changed to something like–we didn’t have it before, we don’t have it now, we don’t know when we will have the Truth.

 

[Greg72]

Well now—maybe the saying that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth — needs to be changed to something like–we didn’t have it before, we don’t have it now, we don’t know when we will have the Truth.

I’m sure that our separated brethren would agree with that

The Church does have the fullness of Truth. She was founded by Our Lord Himself. That doesn’t mean that the church on earth has ever (or will ever) become all-knowing.

We can rest assured that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, She won’t ever teach error - that’s good enough for me.

 

[Greg72]

Because the unbaptised are in limbo does not mean they are apart from God. God’s mercy in providing for them happiness says they are not apart from Him.

So God has set up a happy area in hell?

Would not save or not quite save—it makes no difference. It still falls back to questioning God and trying to infuse our own desires and manipulate God into what we wish.

Making a happy area in hell seems to fit the bill nicely.

You say that many failed to distinguish between an actual teaching and a widely held belief. No --it has been the holders and promoters of this “new ideology” of these last years that are turning the actual teaching of limbo – which came down from and thru the Church Herself to countless generations— into nothing other than some form of “widely held belief”.

Yet when the Popes of the modern Church speak against it, you are quick to point out that they aren’t teaching, but only giving opinions…

 

[surgei]

Why is it no one is addressing the real problem with limbo?
Limbo is a Christological error in that it sees Christ as first a substitute for God’s wrath. It turns the sacrifice of Calvary into a war of the divine persons one seeking to wipe man out the other seeking to be wiped out in their place. This turns God into a monster, and makes him a god like baal and other false gods who accepted the blood of his people as good.
Does not the holy apostle and evangilist teach us that “God is Love”? As such God did not create you or any creature to condemn you but to be with you. It is men that condemn themselves even in the age to come.
This view also errors in that it sees the deaths of infants outside the scope of his power to save. It turns the joy of created things into a substitute of the divine light offered to all through union with him. Even if Limbo started out as joy, the soul of man is created to have union with God who is frustrating this goal by placing the child in Limbo and not granting the child the goal without the child commiting any act whatsoever.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m sure that our separated brethren would agree with that

The Church does have the fullness of Truth. She was founded by Our Lord Himself. That doesn’t mean that the church on earth has ever (or will ever) become all-knowing.

We can rest assured that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, She won’t ever teach error - that’s good enough for me.

---

It seems — it still leaves us in the position of not knowing what the Truth is. Yesterdays Truth – may not be todays Truth—and todays Truth may not be tomorrows Truth. Of course this all can be explained away by the “new ideology” of “new and deeper” understandings.

 

[surgei]

---

It seems — it still leaves us in the position of not knowing what the Truth is. Yesterdays Truth – may not be todays Truth—and todays Truth may not be tomorrows Truth. Of course this all can be explained away by the “new ideology” of “new and deeper” understandings.

I have never seen such a great apology for why theology does not develop. If it does not develop here, it does not develop in any of the inovations of the Roman Church. Return then to your home in Orthodoxy. Return to the faith of your fathers. I am not asking that individuals become Orthodox. I am begging for the entire Church to come back to herself.

 

[Greg72]

It seems — it still leaves us in the position of not knowing what the Truth is. Yesterdays Truth – may not be todays Truth—and todays Truth may not be tomorrows Truth. Of course this all can be explained away by the “new ideology” of “new and deeper” understandings.

The teachings on the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, etc… were always true. The Truth never changes.

You seem to be equating the progress of Holy Mother Church to the modernization of the Christian communities who have come to accept divorce, contraception, etc…

 

[SemperFidelis]

Why is it no one is addressing the real problem with limbo? Limbo is a Christological error…

Probably because for about the tenth time the Church does not see things the way the Orthodox does.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Because the unbaptised are in limbo does not mean they are apart from God. God’s mercy in providing for them happiness says they are not apart from Him.

So God has set up a happy area in hell?

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Would not save or not quite save—it makes no difference. It still falls back to questioning God and trying to infuse our own desires and manipulate God into what we wish.

Making a happy area in hell seems to fit the bill nicely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
You say that many failed to distinguish between an actual teaching and a widely held belief. No --it has been the holders and promoters of this “new ideology” of these last years that are turning the actual teaching of limbo – which came down from and thru the Church Herself to countless generations— into nothing other than some form of “widely held belief”.

Yet when the Popes of the modern Church speak against it, you are quick to point out that they aren’t teaching, but only giving opinions…

---

You said—how can there be happiness apart from God. I say being in limbo does not mean they are apart from God.

Pope Benedict as Pope and speaking for the Church has not made a declaration on limbo. JPII statement is not infallible.

As you said —it is in the “modern” Church where the “new ideology” threatens under the disguise that limbo was just some sort of “widely held belief” – the fact of its actual teaching by and thru the Church —accepted by Faith by countless generations.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Why are you so quick to dismiss them?

Because their (as in only two Popes) personal opinions differ from that of almost 1000 years of teaching on the subject, that includes Limbo being mentioned by several Popes and Doctors of the Church. If that’s not the Ordinary Magisterium speaking, then I don’t know what is. You have two Popes who have given their personal opinions on the matter (that’s it), but you reject the explicit teachings of numerous Catechisms, Doctors of the Church, Popes, Apostolic Constitutions, etc. to be replaced by some modern theology. What it boils down to is you are rejecting Limbo because it upsets you, and you want to replace it with some kind of “feel-good” theology.

 

[Greg72]

What it boils down to is you are rejecting Limbo because it upsets you, and you want to replace it with some kind of “feel-good” theology.

Limbo itself is a feel-good theology relative to the belief that unbaptised infants suffer in hell.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
It seems — it still leaves us in the position of not knowing what the Truth is. Yesterdays Truth – may not be todays Truth—and todays Truth may not be tomorrows Truth. Of course this all can be explained away by the “new ideology” of “new and deeper” understandings.

The teachings on the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, etc… were always true. The Truth never changes.

You seem to be equating the progress of Holy Mother Church to the modernization of the Christian communities who have come to accept divorce, contraception, etc…

---

That did not stop Arius from taking the majority of the Church into heresy concerning the Trinity. It seems the Immaculate Conception was also subject to controversy.

Now as to the progress (modernization) of Holy Mother Church. One must be extremely careful of what the progress is and where it leads. You see — falling into the following error --opens the door to begetting more error.

newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

During the past century the Church has been called on to reject as erroneous several views of Revelation irreconcilable with Catholic belief. Three of these may here be noted.

The view of Anton Guenther (1783-1863). This writer denied that Revelation could include mysteries strictly so-called, inasmuch as the human intellect is capable of penetrating to the full all revealed truth. He taught, further, that the meaning to be attached to revealed doctrines is undergoing constant change as human knowledge grows and man’s mind develops; so that the dogmatic formul which are now true will gradually cease to be so. His writings were put on the Index in 1857, and his erroneous propositions definitively condemned in the decrees of the Vatican Council.

Vatican I
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4

Chapter 4
4. On faith and reason

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

 

[Greg72]

---

That did not stop Arius from taking the majority of the Church into heresy concerning the Trinity. It seems the Immaculate Conception was also subject to controversy.

Now as to the progress (modernization) of Holy Mother Church. One must be extremely careful of what the progress is and where it leads. You see — falling into the following error --opens the door to begetting more error.

newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

During the past century the Church has been called on to reject as erroneous several views of Revelation irreconcilable with Catholic belief. Three of these may here be noted.

The view of Anton Guenther (1783-1863). This writer denied that Revelation could include mysteries strictly so-called, inasmuch as the human intellect is capable of penetrating to the full all revealed truth. He taught, further, that the meaning to be attached to revealed doctrines is undergoing constant change as human knowledge grows and man’s mind develops; so that the dogmatic formul which are now true will gradually cease to be so. His writings were put on the Index in 1857, and his erroneous propositions definitively condemned in the decrees of the Vatican Council.

Vatican I
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4

Chapter 4
4. On faith and reason

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

I notice that both of these examples contain the idea that it is the advancement of human knowledge that will lead to changes. While some fall into this error, I maintain that the Holy Spirit will act as a corrective if necessary and that it will have nothing to do with what we may have failed to grasp intellectually.

Still, I thank you for the warning and for the background. I will read the rest of the links over the holidays. I will also look into a bit more of the history behind the things you mentioned since this is a weak-spot for me.

As a side-note, I actually didn’t realize that I was posting in the “Traditional Catholicism” forum (I just pick topics from the “new posts” that look interesting). In light of that, I realize that some of my comments may have seemed antagonistic. I didn’t mean any offense and hope that I didn’t cause any.

 

[surgei]

Probably because for about the tenth time the Church does not see things the way the Orthodox does.

That is some parts of the western Church sui juris did not see things the way the Orthodox do. It does not in any way mean that the whole of the western Church through history saw it the way you do. That is what the Pope is attempting to illumine for you is it not.
Drift
Your seperation of a bishops private opinion from official teaching is not unlike the seperation between public service and private oposition to abortion by politicians.

 

[Walking_Home]

I notice that both of these examples contain the idea that it is the advancement of human knowledge that will lead to changes. While some fall into this error, I maintain that the Holy Spirit will act as a corrective if necessary and that it will have nothing to do with what we may have failed to grasp intellectually.

Still, I thank you for the warning and for the background. I will read the rest of the links over the holidays. I will also look into a bit more of the history behind the things you mentioned since this is a weak-spot for me.

As a side-note, I actually didn’t realize that I was posting in the “Traditional Catholicism” forum (I just pick topics from the “new posts” that look interesting). In light of that, I realize that some of my comments may have seemed antagonistic. I didn’t mean any offense and hope that I didn’t cause any.

---

One must also be aware of the many paths that are taken --under the disguise of being led by the Holy Spirit. Think of the many paths the protestant denominations are taking —some falling further and further away-- all supposedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Going back to Arius — more than likely — the Arians believed they were led by the Holy Spirit (leading them to the Truth). The same goes for every heresy which has threatened the Church

As far as causing offense — you and I are participating in a discussion — haven’t seen any offense in that.