Where did the gentiles go in the time of the old Testament?

[veritatisstella]

I agree with you there about the Limbo of Infants. It was never actually proposed as a teaching by the Church. It always was speculation, and still is. There’s nothing wrong with believing it, and nothing wrong not to.

The Limbo of the Fathers, on the other hand, refers to an entirely different concept than the Limbo of Infants. It was the place where righteous people went after they died in the Old Testament to await the coming of Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven. And this “limbo” of the Fathers certainly is Church teaching as far as I know.

 

[Gorgias]

veritatisstella:

To my understanding the Limbo of the Fathers is actual teaching, whereas the Limbo of Infants is just a theological opinion that gained popularity in the Middle Ages.

No, and you are not going to a find any authoritative sources for that, either.

Hmm… really?

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

And here, when Pope Benedict authorized study into the question and the ITC rendered its answer, I guess I thought that it was an ‘authoritative source’…

“Limbo” comes from “limbus”, Or “margin”. Quite literally, Augustine scrawled a note in the margin of his work asking, “what about unbaptized infants?”

My understanding is that the term ‘limbo’ comes from the description that the putative inhabitants thereof are on the ‘edge’ or ‘margin’ of heaven (or hell), and not the location of someone’s notes…

 

[dochawk]

Hmm… really?

Really.

I didn’t even have to read this source to know that it wasn’t going to say that. If you read it, would it does say is that It is A permissible theory, but has never been the teaching of thechurch.

[ QUOTE]
This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.
[/quote]

And,

And here, when Pope Benedict authorized study into the question and the ITC rendered its answer, I guess I thought that it was an ‘authoritative source’…

Authorization to investigate something is not a “authoritative source” that any particular opinion on the subject is true!

My understanding is that the term ‘limbo’ comes from the description that the putative inhabitants thereof are on the ‘edge’ or ‘margin’ of heaven (or hell), and not the location of someone’s notes…

“My” understanding is actually that of the JesuitPhilosophy and theology professors who taught me this…

hawk

 

[Gorgias]

Really.

So… no. Not really.

I didn’t even have to read this source to know that it wasn’t going to say that.

So, without reading it, you knew that it was going to say, as you said in response to @veritatisstella, “no, [the Limbo of Infants is just a theological opinion], and you’re not going to find any authoritative sources for that, either”?

Umm… really? Cause, if you bothered to read it, you’d see what I quoted from that document to you: “the theory of limbo, understood as… the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism… [do not] merit the beatific vision. … This theory… never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. … It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”

Ok, then. Perhaps I might suggest you read before asserting.

If you read it, would it does say is that It is A permissible theory, but has never been the teaching of thechurch.

Umm… except that you asserted that it wasn’t a theological opinion. So… yeah. There’s that.

“My” understanding is actually that of the JesuitPhilosophy and theology professors who taught me this…

Got it. You might want to read up on the theory of limbo, then. I might suggest that, at the very least, you might have misheard your prof.

 

[veritatisstella]

To my understanding the Limbo of the Fathers is actual teaching, whereas the Limbo of Infants is just a theological opinion that gained popularity in the Middle Ages.

dochawk:

No, and you are not going to a find any authoritative sources for that, either.

I’m a bit confused now as to exactly what you meant by this. Did you mean to say that the Limbo of Infants is not just a theological opinion? Or did you mean to say that the Limbo of the Fathers is just opinion? Or did you mean to agree with my statement about the Limbo of Infants?

 

[dochawk]

I stated that Limbo has never been the teaching of the church.

I didn’t not in any way suggest that it is not an acceptable theological opinion.

A great many things have been postulated by many great theologians which have become of the teaching of the church, others by those same theologians have been rejected by the church, and others are the opinions and teachings of those individuals and not the teachings of the church.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

So, without reading it, you knew that it was going to say, as you said in response to @veritatisstella, “no, [the Limbo of Infants is just a theological opinion], and you’re not going to find any authoritative sources for that, either”?

No, your additions are not correct.

I was referring to the statement that limbo it’s self is a Doctrine.

Umm… really? Cause, if you bothered to read it, you’d see what I quoted from that document to you: “the theory of limbo, understood as… the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism… [do not] merit the beatific vision. … This theory… never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. … It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”

Ok, then. Perhaps I might suggest you read before asserting.

[\quote]

I would suggest the same, particularly with what I wrote.

I stated that I did not have to read it to see where the error was, not that I hadn’t read it . . .

.

Umm… except that you asserted that it wasn’t a theological opinion. So… yeah. There’s that.

When in doubt, make up what someone said, and argue with that…

Your insertion above into what I actually wrote change the meaning, and was not what I was referring to.

“My” understanding is actually that of the JesuitPhilosophy and theology professors who taught me this…

Got it. You might want to read up on the theory of limbo, then. I might suggest that, at the very least, you might have misheard your prof.

Again, not what I wrote. That was about the definition of the word, and the source, to correct the incorrect etymology.

As this has become a complete waste of time, I am done with it And a meeting this thread.

hawk

 

[veritatisstella]

I was referring to the statement that limbo it’s self is a Doctrine

I think we are all in agreement that the Limbo of Infants is not a doctrine, and no one ever said that it was.

I stated that the Limbo of the Fathers is a doctrine and I still stand by that. The terms “Limbo of the Fathers” and “Limbo of Infants” refer to two entirely different places. One limbo (of infants) is a hypothetical theological opinion, while the other limbo (of the Fathers) refers to the actual place righteous people in the Old Testament went after they died.

Do you believe the Limbo of the Fathers is a doctrine? If so, we are completely in agreement and I’m confused as to what was being argued about. I think we have been misinterpreting the meaning of one another’s statements, so I would appreciate some clarification on your viewpoint.