Hell or heaven - forget about limbo

[The White Knight]

How can limbo be abolished?

The Pope may be about to abolish the notion of limbo, the halfway house between heaven and hell, inhabited by unbaptised infants. Is it really that simple?

Pope Benedict XVI's anticipated pronouncement on limbo will have been informed by the International Theological Commission - a group of leading Roman Catholic theologians who have been meeting to consider the issue.

...

Read the full article by BBC NEWS here.

[God]

Nice to know the Pope can simply decide on what the word of God is just like that.

And won't this mean that dead babies and people who have never heard of Jesus will go straight to hell? Or straight to heaven even?

[Manji]

Nice to know the Pope can simply decide on what the word of God is just like that.

Actually he can, at least as it concerns Catholics because:

a) he is infalible
b) he is God's representative on Earth
c) in all of it's existance the Catholic Church has altered dogma according to new "revelations" brought on by discoveries or change in perspective.

There you go, "God"...

[Marcus Scaurus]

Does the Bible say anything about limbo? As far as I know not.

[God]

Does the Bible say anything about limbo? As far as I know not.

Apparently not:

...This idea however was criticised by Peter Abelard, a French scholastic philosophiser, who said that babies who had no personal sin didn't even deserve punishment.

It was Abelard who introduced the idea of limbo. The word comes from the Latin "limbus", meaning the edge. This would be a state of existence where unbaptised babies, and those unfortunate enough to have been born before Jesus, would not experience pain but neither would they experience the Beatific Vision of God.

And apparently they go straight to heaven now. (so forget my last post)

[Pnutmaster]

Jeez, that is funny.

And apparently they go straight to heaven now.

Meaning, they packed their bags and took the elevator up to Heaven when the Pope announced that limbo was abolished? Is the Pope declaring that Limbo never existed, or that it no longer exists O_o?

Nonetheless, a very amusing update in the world of Catholicism

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Dead babies go to hell, I think not. It's been pointed out here, and I apologize that I don't have the exact location of the quote, but the Bible states "Children and those who think like children will enter into the kingdom of heaven." and as far as the "people who have never heard of christ" well there's something for them too. Something about them having a conscience and that is their compass or some such. I havn't read that in a long time, someone back me up here.

[sephodwyrm]

Its exciting how a bunch of non-theologians discuss about what the afterlife is like.

Frankly, I remember the Prophet (PBUH) quoting that even he does not know what would become of himself.
And so did the founder of Zen-Buddhism, Darma.

I don't know what the afterlife is like, because I'm not dead yet.

Advice to Pope:
Be concerned about the world more than the afterlife.

[Reidy]

I'm really liking his justification:

The Pope, himself, has been quoted in the past as saying that he would let the idea of limbo "drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5406552.stm

Only a theological hypothesis, hmmm? Please, pray tell what Heaven and Hell are then, if not that.

[Simetrical]

Only a theological hypothesis, hmmm? Please, pray tell what Heaven and Hell are then, if not that.

The Catholic Church tends to distinguish very strongly (at least recently) between teachings that are infallible and eternal, and teachings that are not. The best-known examples are the Vatican Councils, which did away with a number of old ideas. Not everything that a pope says is infallible, only certain very narrow forms of formal and considered declaration ex cathedra. Likely no pope or other infallible body has ever declared the existence of limbo in their most official and infallible capacity, so indeed it's just a "theological hypothesis" and there's no problem in overturning it. Heaven and the afterlife generally, on the other hand, are referred to in the Nicene Creed, which is definitely infallible dogma.

I'm not a scholar of Catholicism, but it's amazing what Wikipedia will tell you.

[God]

Only a theological hypothesis, hmmm? Please, pray tell what Heaven and Hell are then, if not that.

But limbo is never actually mentioned in the bible, heaven and hell are.

Apparently some bloke called Peter Abelard made it up as he thought it would be unfair for babies to go to hell, except now even without limbo they go to heaven.

a) he is infalible
b) he is God's representative on Earth
c) in all of it's existance the Catholic Church has altered dogma according to new "revelations" brought on by discoveries or change in perspective.

Fair enough, "Manji"

EDIT: Did the Catholic church teach that Limbo definately existed before or not?

[Tom Paine]

Interestingly, he's saying that a previous (and infallible) string of Popes were wrong (while being infallible). Oh the theological implications!

[Manji]

I don't think he is saying that, you are saying that.... :wink:
More, the whole limbo subject has been under discussion for a long time and has never been accepted as dogma.

For example:

If heaven is a state of happiness and a union with God, and hell is a state of torture and a separation from God, then (many eminent Roman Catholic theologians have speculated) limbo is a neutral state, in which souls are denied the beatific vision, but saved from the torment of hell. Saint Thomas Aquinas described the limbo of children as an eternal state of natural joy, untempered by any sense of loss at how much greater their joy might have been — a supernatural joy — had they been baptized.

but the official Catechism says:

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' [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], 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.

[Tom Paine]

I don't think he is saying that, you are saying that.... :wink:
More, the whole limbo subject has been under discussion for a long time and has never been accepted as dogma.

For example:

but the official Catechism says:

I believe Dante has been accepted, and Limo referred to be the Catholic church and accepted as fact, as in the medieval synthesis and cycle of penance...

[Idwayreth]

love how people can just add and take away from their belief. So, the question i wanna ask is, who added the whole god concept? since it seems THAT easy to add

[Tom Paine]

Belief is inherently flexible. This wasn't central to belief and thus may easily be removed. God is central, in terms of belief, unless the belief is now in the Church not God in which case God has left it anyway.

[Idwayreth]

i would say where you go after death is a pretty significant part of a religion dont you agree? Especially since you can't really know until you're dead. If they can pick and choose something like that, then i'd say the idea of god is fair game when criticizing them.

[Simetrical]

Under Catholic doctrine, it is not. The existence of God has been declared unquestionable on many occasions, the existence of limbo has never been.

[Idwayreth]

that's what i'm talking about though, how can you respect their stand on god when they change the afterlife around. both can't be proven so why is one written in stone while the other can get traded like a pokemon card.

[Manji]

that's what i'm talking about though, how can you respect their stand on god when they change the afterlife around. both can't be proven so why is one written in stone while the other can get traded like a pokemon card.

That's like saying "how can you respect a scientist that made a theory that later was proved wrong"; regardless of the issues they approach they are human and do not have full knowledge hence they speculate; the whole issue of limbo as a reality was always a theological possibility but never accepted as dogma. They did not "change the afterlife around", it's an aspect of "what happens in the afterlife" that is debated not the whole subject of afterlife.

When discussing issues about a specific religion you could try at least to learn what is their stance instead of making an assumption and going from there, don't you think?