It is now official, Limbo is no more.

Asiaprod

The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years

Babies who die before being baptised will no longer be trapped in limbo following a decision by the Pope to abolish the concept from Roman Catholic teaching.
The decision was taken after Benedict XVI was presented with Vatican studies that said there were "serious" grounds that such souls could go to heaven, rather than exist between heaven and hell as they have done for almost 800 years.

The 41-page report by the Vatican's Theological Commission, which was compiled following a three-year study, said the concept was an "unduly restrictive view of salvation". However, it added that baptism was the only way to remove the stain of original sin - which according to the Catholic faith all are born with - and urged parents to continue to baptise their children.

"There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for the little ones," the report says.

"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge." The decision marks a gradual and protracted softening of the Church's view on those who had not been baptised.

In the fifth century, St Augustine concluded that infants who died without baptism were consigned to hell. In the 14th century, the poet Dante described limbo as the "first circle of hell" in The Divine Comedy, where such souls were not punished but grieved for their separation from God. Later, theologians surmised that the "limbo of infants" was a state where they were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of. The Pope approved the document, titled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, in January after it was presented to him by Cardinal William Levada, the president of the Theological Commission.

The decision was announced at the weekend and posted on the Catholic News Service website.

Father Paul McPartlan, a British priest and a member of the commission, said: "We cannot say we know with certainty what will happen to unbaptised children but we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation."

LordSutch

Thats very interesting, seeing as I am a Protestant I had no idea what 'Limbo' was, other than a dance ..................

bonkey

The Pope : There are grounds for "prayerful hope" that infants do not end up in Limbo.

Unsourced article : The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years

Asiaprod : The pope has made it official that Limbo is no more.

Asiaprod

bonkey wrote:

The Pope : There are grounds for "prayerful hope" that infants do not end up in Limbo.

Unsourced article : The Pope ends state of limbo after 800 years

Asiaprod : The pope has made it official that Limbo is no more.

I'm sorry, could you simplify all this for me, I don't follow it. The source is
The BBC and is also available on CNN, Daily Telegraph and Irish Independent.

bonkey

Asiaprod wrote:

I'm sorry, could you simplify all this for me, I don't follow it.

I took the comment that the Pope made, the headline of what the article you posted was, and your title thread.

All three say something different.

The article headline you quoted is inaccurate in that Pope hasn't ended anything...he has said there are ground to hope that the previously held position may be incorrect.

You then summarised this as the Pope making it official that Limbo "is no more". He most certainly didn't.

Asiaprod

bonkey wrote:

You then summarised this as the Pope making it official that Limbo "is no more". He most certainly didn't.

Thank you for pointing that out, it was completely unintentional I can assure you. I wrote that in a hurry.

ISAW

Asiaprod wrote:

Thank you for pointing that out, it was completely unintentional I can assure you. I wrote that in a hurry.

I think we have been over this ground before. AFAIK Limbo was never dogma! It was a position taken up on questioning whether non christians went to hell?
And 800 years ago isnt even half of the history of Christianity!

Anyway what is an non christian?

I am again reminded of that wonderful series of books (no not the bible) by CS Lewis about Narnia. In one of them (the last one I think - yes it is) Aslan gets to speak to a Calorman . the Calormenes are basically similar to Arabs. Narnians look to Aslan (who is the SON of the Emperor over the Sea) buy Calormenes look to Tash. Anyway there is a door leading to Aslans country and all the people of the world are called to it. Aslan stands before it. All the people and animals ( narnian animals can talk) file past Aslan. Some find it difficult to look in his face but do so. Even some "bad" charachters (who changed!) from earlier books. Some refuse to look at him and move into his shadow and are never seen again. They look back trrough the door and eventually the world is flooded by the oceans and father time reaches up and quenches the sun. Then aslan closes and locks the door on the frozen dark world.

Now where did I hear similar stories before? Anyway, just before that a Calorman captain asked to be thrown through the door. The door was a door into a shed which the group outside thousht coantained "tashlan" the false god created by a (non believing) Calorman general to subjugate Narnians. As it happens Tash did exist and ended up taking the general. The Captain however was brought up worshipping Tash and was a decent man. He refused to accept the false Tashlan and said he wanted to meet Tash as he served Tash.

My point is this:
When Aslan meets the Captain he tells him that Tash is the opposite of Aslan but that the Captain did good deeds which are abhorrant to Tash. Therefore (paraphrasing) what is good I take unto myself even if done in Tash name and what os abhorrant to me Tash takes onto himself even iof done in my name.

Basically aslan took on the innocent children and those who were misinformed or misguided but of pure heart. So if Christ came to save all mankind how could he ignore children who never heard of Christ?

InFront

Do many Christians believe in Limbo and original sin?

I remember when the present pope came to power it was said of him that he was very committed to preserving the traditions of the catholic church as opposed to a policy of revisionism/ relativism, but this is a significant/ common belief isn't it? Or maybe not?
My knowledge of it would be quite poor, but even I have heard about original sin. I thought it might be a pretty big significant aspect of the religion to revise, so I was surprised to read this article.

PDN

InFront wrote:

Do many Christians believe in Limbo and original sin?

I remember when the present pope came to power it was said of him that he was very committed to preserving the traditions of the catholic church as opposed to a policy of revisionism/ relativism, but this is a significant/ common belief isn't it? Or maybe not?
My knowledge of it would be quite poor, but even I have heard about original sin. I thought it might be a pretty big significant aspect of the religion to revise, so I was surprised to read this article.

Most Christians do believe in original sin. As far as I understand it the Catholic Church still does believe in original sin.

Most Christians believe that every child is born with an inherited sinful nature. Every child learns how to lie, for example, without anyone teaching them. Evangelical Christians believe that the child reaches an age of accountability, when they can be held responsible for their own actions. Then they become morally responsible for the sinful acts they have committed. It is necessary, after this point, for the child/young person to either accept Christ by faith (and be saved) or reject Christ (and be lost). Children who die before that point go straight to heaven because a just God would never condemn a child for rejecting a Gospel they were too young to understand. Most Christians would apply the same reasoning to someone with a severe mental handicap.

Roman Catholics also believe in original sin, but have traditionally taught that even a child is corrupted by their inherited sinful nature and therefore unable to enter a holy heaven. The proposed answer is baptism, by which the stain of original sin is washed away. (I noticed that when Bertie Ahern spoke at Charles Haughey's funeral, he stated his belief in Haughey's salvation, not on account of anything good or bad he ever did, but because of his baptism as a baby). Of course, in this belief system, you are left with the problem of what happens to unbaptised babies. Hence limbo was invented. Actually, in its day, limbo was probably intended as a kindly thing - a step above believing that unbaptised babies went to hell. Today everybody has got a lot nicer and heaven is now possibly open for unbaptised babies (and even for Protestants) so limbo is no longer needed.

bonkey

PDN wrote:

Actually, in its day, limbo was probably intended as a kindly thing - a step above believing that unbaptised babies went to hell.

As an adult, once I started thinking about the concept of Limbo, it struck me as a "necessary" invention in its day to explain why heathens needed to be converted and baptised, but why the unbaptised children of Christians wouldn't suffer the same fate the heathens were assigned to. It had to leave in place the impetus for baptism, whilst removing the universal condemnation of the unbaptised by making some form of exception.

It also raised some interesting questions. If an unbaptised baby goes to anywhere other than hell (be it limbo or heaven) then at what point does that change, and they simply become "unbaptised" and no longer subject to this "special case"? Their first conscious sin? The first sin they knowingly commit?

After all, surely God doesn't make exceptions between the unbaptised children who will later be baptised and those who will not....but some/many Christians hold that among adults, baptism is essential. So logically, a threshold is at some point reached and crossed. I just don't know what that threshold would be.

ISAW wrote:

Basically aslan took on the innocent children and those who were misinformed or misguided but of pure heart. So if Christ came to save all mankind how could he ignore children who never heard of Christ?

Similarly, though, it suggests that Christ would judge people on their actions, rather than on their beliefs. This is, I believe, the view that Lewis had, but is not one which is universally shared amongst Christians....as numerous threads have already indicated.

PDN

bonkey wrote:

It also raised some interesting questions. If an unbaptised baby goes to anywhere other than hell (be it limbo or heaven) then at what point does that change, and they simply become "unbaptised" and no longer subject to this "special case"? Their first conscious sin? The first sin they knowingly commit?

After all, surely God doesn't make exceptions between the unbaptised children who will later be baptised and those who will not....but some/many Christians hold that among adults, baptism is essential. So logically, a threshold is at some point reached and crossed. I just don't know what that threshold would be.

Your first paragraph would refer solely to Roman Catholic beliefs, so I think it would be better for a Catholic to discuss that with you.

Your second paragraph would appear to refer to those non-Catholics, like myself, who reject infant baptism. (There are certain churches, eg Presbyterians, who baptise children without claiming that the ceremony has any ability to confer salvation). Let me stress that very few who practice believer's baptism (more accurate than 'adult' since someone can be a conscious believer in Christ but still technically be a child) would see baptism as essential for salvation. We would believe baptism to be "essential" in that it is obedience to a command of Christ, but if someone neglects to be baptised then no evangelical Christian I know would therefore think they are not saved.

There are a few sects or denominations that believe in baptismal regeneration, but these are usually viewed as fringe movements that also differ from most Christians in, for example, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity.

Puteq

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

robindch

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

In this article, the BBC quotes a Times article which implied that the pope chose to make this change of dogma because he was aware that people in Africa and Asia, where infant mortality rates are high, would choose islam over christianity in order to guarantee religious security of their dead children. Discarding the idea of Limbo would therefore remove islam's competitive advantage and place the two religions on an equal footing in the religious marketplace which is something that would probably interest the church.

philologos

But Catholicism isn't exclusively Christianity. The other Christian churches are perfectly able to compete with Islam as it is.

robindch

Yes, and I'd assume that the pope probably knew that. I would imagine that he'd want to compete effectively with other christian variations too, rather than lose potential converts?

Stabshauptmann

Theres something very strange to me about the obvious need of atheists to convert people [sic].

I understand why people with certain religious beliefs feel it their duty to spread the good news, but why do atheists feel so strongly about proving they're right?

kelly1

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

Hello Puteq, I have to take issue with your statement.

The concept of Limbo was never dogmatically defined and is merely a theory (which the Pope hasn't ruled out BTW). i.e. the Church isn't changing its teaching.

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I'm not a theologian, but I belive the concept of Limbo was invented in light of the above verse and in view of God's mercy. The fate of unbaptized infant is a mystery but we have hope in God's mercy.

God bless,
Noel.

mossieh

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

Amen brother/sister!

Sangre

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Theres something very strange to me about the obvious need of atheists to convert people [sic].

I understand why people with certain religious beliefs feel it their duty to spread the good news, but why do atheists feel so strongly about proving they're right?

Misery loves company....

axer

Puteq wrote:

With the Pope making statements like this, doesn't it seem like they are 'making it up as they go along'?

I believe it was the marketing department that got him to say it.

But seriously, the catholic church have always been making it up as they go along.

The Pope: how can we make more money?
Ted (The Pope's accountant): how about we change the rules and don't let priests marry so that we can take everything they own when they die.
The Pope: Brilliant Ted!
Ted: Also Mr. Pope, how about we don't let any women become priests. T'would save having to pay for maternity leave.
The Pope: I know that rule is not in the rulebook but sure what the heck. Lets do it!

kelly1

axer wrote:

But seriously, the catholic church have always been making it up as they go along.

Axer, would you care to back up you statement? Otherwise, stop stirring up trouble.

Noel.

axer

kelly1 wrote:

Axer, would you care to back up you statement? Otherwise, stop stirring up trouble.

Noel.

The catholic church made up the rule about no women priests. The catholic church made up the rule about priests cannot marry. I don't have to back those up, do I? Ergo it seems to me that the catholic church seem to make up whatever rules suit themselves. So it doesn't surprise me if they got rid of limbo for unbaptised babies just to get more people to join the religion.

BrianCalgary

axer wrote:

I believe it was the marketing department that got him to say it.

But seriously, the catholic church have always been making it up as they go along.

The Pope: how can we make more money?
Ted (The Pope's accountant): how about we change the rules and don't let priests marry so that we can take everything they own when they die.
The Pope: Brilliant Ted!
Ted: Also Mr. Pope, how about we don't let any women become priests. T'would save having to pay for maternity leave.
The Pope: I know that rule is not in the rulebook but sure what the heck. Lets do it!

The flaw in your argument is as follows:

Firstly there wouldn't be any need for maternity leave and secondly hiring women priests would be a heck of a lot cheaper than the men.

On a seriuos note though, if it's the Catholic church you're bothered with, fair enough, stay away and go find God in another denomination.

axer

BrianCalgary wrote:

Firstly there wouldn't be any need for maternity leave and secondly hiring women priests would be a heck of a lot cheaper than the men.

There would be if they were allowed to marry!

Does anyone know is it part of the catholic churches belief that there is or is not limbo? i.e. is you are a catholic are you supposed to believe in it or not?

J C

bonkey wrote:

There are grounds for "prayerful hope" that infants do not end up in Limbo.

Does this mean that Limbo is now ITSELF, in a 'state of Limbo' within Roman Catholocism????:D ????

mossieh

J C wrote:

Does this mean that Limbo is now ITSELF, in a 'state of Limbo' within Roman Catholocism????:D ????

I don't think so, it just means that what the Catholic church said was the truth last week is not the truth this week. Because they say so. And why not?

kelly1

axer wrote:

Does anyone know is it part of the catholic churches belief that there is or is not limbo? i.e. is you are a catholic are you supposed to believe in it or not?

Limbo is a theory, it's not a doctrine. So you can choose to believe in Limbo or not.

Noel.

kelly1

mossieh wrote:

I don't think so, it just means that what the Catholic church said was the truth last week is not the truth this week. Because they say so. And why not?

Any chance you could make an intelligent comment instead of this puerile attempt at humour?

mossieh

kelly1 wrote:

Any chance you could make an intelligent comment instead of this puerile attempt at humour?

Maybe, depends on whether or not I find the subject funny. I find this funny.

Does the Church have an official position on limbo-dancing and if so, is it doctrine or theory?

UU

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Theres something very strange to me about the obvious need of atheists to convert people [sic].

I understand why people with certain religious beliefs feel it their duty to spread the good news, but why do atheists feel so strongly about proving they're right?

I'm atheist and I don't around "converting" people. Actually most Atheists keep to themselves. I mean, we're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever we want and have opinions about whatever we want but I'd never try to force my beliefs on anyone because I wouldn't like somebody to do it to me. If somebody wants to have a debate about religion and stuff with me, I'm all for that. I'll treat the deabte the same as any other debate because religion deserves no special position IMO. I'm not a narrow-minded person not am I dogmatic.

Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw the Enlightened Church of Atheism calling to your door and asking for your membership for the sake of salvation of the world by the non-God? :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

UU wrote:

Let me ask you, when was the last time you saw the Enlightened Church of Atheism calling to your door and asking for your membership for the sake of salvation of the world by the non-God? :rolleyes:

About half the posters in this thread tbh.