Jolie Rouge

Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries[i]
By Philip Pullella
Fri Apr 20, 2:21 PM ET[/b]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went. In a long-awaited document, the Church's International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the document, called "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised."

The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century. "The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation," it said. "There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them)."

The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

"NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM"

The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or "used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament."

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning "border" or "edge," was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.

"People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian," the document said.

It said the study was made all the more pressing because "the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent."

The commission's conclusions had been widely expected.

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was "only a theological hypothesis" and "never a defined truth of faith."

In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church's official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/...FI.mRlt5is0NUE

Pope approves report on teaching limbo
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
Fri Apr 20, 5:48 PM ET

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.

Theologians said the move was highly significant — both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin — the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God. "If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. "Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response.

Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing" pastoral needs — primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.

While the report does not carry the authority of a papal encyclical or even the weight of a formal document from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it was approved by the pope on Jan. 19 and was published on the Internet — an indication that it was intended to be widely read by the faithful. "We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies," the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general, told The Associated Press. He stressed that there was no certainty, just hope.

The Commission posted its document Friday on Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service, the news agency of the American Bishop's Conference.

The document traces centuries of Church views on the fate of unbaptized infants, paying particular attention to the writings of St. Augustine — the 4th century bishop who is particularly dear to Benedict. Augustine wrote that such infants do go to hell, but they suffer only the "mildest condemnation."

In the document, the commission said such views are now out of date and there were "serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision."

It stressed, however, that "these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."

No one can know for certain what becomes of unbaptized babies since Scripture is largely silent on the matter, the report said.

It stressed that none of its findings should be taken as diminishing the need for parents to baptize infants. "Rather ... they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church."

Vatican watchers hailed the decision as both a sensitive and significant move by Benedict. "Parents who are mourning the death of their child are no longer going to be burdened with the added guilt of not having gotten their child baptized," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

He said the document also had implications for non-Christians, since it could be seen as suggesting that non-baptized adults could go to heaven if they led a good life. "I think it shows that Benedict is trying to balance his view of Jesus as being central as the savior of the world ... but at the same time not saying what the Evangelicals say, that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is going to hell," he said in a phone interview.

The International Theological Commission is a body of Vatican-appointed theologians who advise the pope and the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Benedict headed the Congregation for two decades before becoming pope in 2005.

___

On the Web: Document is at http://www.originsonline.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/...oj3VZ.0g.s0NUE

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

pepperpot

I just don't understand the Catholic church on some things lately.....

__________________
Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

MistyWolf

Me neither Pepperpot .. too many changes always being made.

In my opinion, unbaptised babies that die go to Heaven. We were raised with the whole "limbo" thing, but I personally don't buy it.

__________________
They say it takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but then an entire life to forget them. Distance and time may separate us but friendship and memories won't.
~When someone you love becomes a memory, the memory becomes a treasure~
=^..^=

Ravenamore

OK, this might help explain things a little...

There is a difference between dogma, which are the eternal truths of the Church, and theological opinion. The fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day is dogma. It is never going to change, so don't worry about that.

Now, there are also theological opinions that become popular for awhile, but are not definitively taught as eternal truths of the Church. Limbo is one of those. It was really popular up until the 2nd Vatican Council, but is no longer popular, because we understand, a little bit better, about how God works.

I'm a convert to the Church, and, when I was preparing for baptism, learned about two other "types" of baptism that get people into heaven, though it doesn't come up a lot. There's baptism of blood, which is if you're martyred for the faith before yuo can be baptised. Then there's baptism of desire, which can be explicit or implicit. Explicit baptism of desire would be what would happen if, after I declared that I, at Easter Vigil, was going to be baptized, but before I showed up at church that night, got run over and killed by a car, God would know that I fully intended to be baptized and treat the wish as the fact.

Implicit baptism of desire is what the person who, say, lives their whole life without having the gospel message explained to them clearly and compassionately. If the person,say, sees all the Christians around them acting badly, that person is going to get the wrong idea about the faith, and, through no fault of his own, will not join the church and become baptized. God does not hold something that is truly not your fault against you.

This also applied to babies who die unbaptized. The parents presumably either planned to have the child baptized, had he or she lived, or did not know about the importance of the sacrament of baptism to have had it done. It is not the child's fault in any way shape or form, so the child is not penalized.

Again, it's a matter of intent here. If you give food to the poor because you know it's commanded of us by God, God will be happy with your actions, because he can see into your heart and mind. If you give food to the poor because you think people will think you're good and treat you well, God knows what your intent is. You might fool people but you can't fool God.

Does this help any?

Ravenamore

jeffstwin

Just a few points to ponder...
If we use the Bible as the standard for our beliefs, upon what basis in the Bible is there any reference to

1. Infant baptism?
2. Limbo?
3. Purgatory?
4. The Pope?

If the Catholic church changes its stance on limbo, then there has to be a problem with the teachings of the church since limbo and other things listed are not even mentioned in the Bible.

Please enlighten me

Jolie Rouge

This one is tricky, but you're right - there is no direct mention of baptizing infants coming from Scripture. It's a matter of tradition, especially concerning the medieval church and its belief in how baptism worked toward salvation. I could write about this a long time, and go into more detail than most people want and take more time than I have, so I'll try to shorten it.

In the apostolic and patristic eras of the church, adult baptisms were performed as a matter of ritual purity and symbolic joining the path of God, something close to the Essenes' practice. Baptism wasn't an entrance rite of the church until at least the second century that we know of, but it was still a believer's baptism - infants and children might have been baptized up to that point, but probably only in the context of an entire household being baptized, and that had more to do with the patronage system than piety.

Over time, the church (Holy Roman, mind you) developed the belief that the act of baptism was necessary for heavenly salvation. Mind you, there was a high rate of infant mortality in Western civilzation at that point (and still is in the world in many places - but that's another thread), and folks started asking if infants would go to hell if not baptized. As the theology developed that answered "yes" to that question, more folks wanted their babies baptized - and by the time of the Reformation, midwives were doing most of the baptisms, as they were there when the child was born, and no one wanted to take any chances. It became a matter of practice, and while the sacrament of baptism was seen as "valid" for the infant, the baptism did not become "efficacious" until the child learned the ways of the Christian tradition and became confirmed, rather like a waterless second baptism, or at least a sealing of the previous act. After the Reformation, not many people saw any reason to change the practice and it has stuck. Not all Christian denominations (including my own) practice infant baptism, but ecumenical dialogue, especially the WCC and their document "Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry" have come forth with a common theology that water by baptism is a visible sign of God's invisible grace, and all forms of Christian baptism mark the person as God's own.

I guess that's not such a short answer, but really the short answer is - tradition that formed over time and was regularly practiced by the 13th century by the Catholic Church and variations broke out after the Reformation, especially in 19th century American frontier denominations.

John 3 is used to support infant Baptism: "Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

I hope this helps.


http://www.Beliefnet.com is a site you may find helpfull.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Ravenamore

The Bible itself mentions that there are things that lead to salvation outside of itself. St. Paul states in one of his epistles to the churches in other lands to hold fast to the traditions they have been taught. He also quotes, in another epistle, a saying of Christ that is not found in any of the four gospels. Also, as the Bible we know and love today wasn't compiled for a few centuries after Christ's ascension, what was the church doing before then? Twiddling their thumbs? History tells us that's not what happened.

Actually, there is mention in the Bible on the topics you've brought up. Let's take a look at them.

1. Infant baptism. You're going to say, "Well, it's not mentioned in the Bible!" Neither is the word "Trinity"...at least, not explicitly. There are several mentions, in the book of Acts, of entire families becoming baptized. We have no reason to doubt that, when they mean "entire" they mean everyone, from babes in arms on up. When Jesus says we must be born again of the water and the Spirit, He meant that.

In the very early Church, it was common for people to delay baptism almost until they were at death's door, because people knew that baptism in the name of Jesus removed their sin and put them in the state of grace. Also, most people used it as an excuse to do what they liked, because they knew that baptism was the sign of joining the Church, and they would be held accountable for unacceptable behavior. Baptism earlier in a person's life would make that person accountable as they grew up, and, because they would have their childhood to develop and perfect their holiness, they would be a much stronger Christian.

Also, keep in mind that up until recently, and even in many places in the world today, infant mortality was very high. People want to make sure that their children would get the best start in life, spiritually as well as physically.

2. Purgatory: I'm not sure why you tossed this one in here, as it has nothing to do with the teaching of limbo. I would guess that you did so because you're using this idea of limbo as a springboard to try and poke holes in Catholicism and show us Catholics how silly we are in our beliefs.

Again, purgatory is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, but it is implicit in several places. Several places in the New Testatment mention a person's works being tried as gold in a furnace. St. Paul states that some people will be saved by passing through the fire. Now, we know that's not hellfire he's talking about, because once you're in hellfire, that's it. Look at Dives the rich man in hell seeing Abraham and Lazarus in heaven, and being told that they could do nothing for him.

There is also mention that we will not go out until we have paid the last farthing, the smallest sin. Purgatory is a state where we will be going to heaven. The souls in purgatory did not clear up all of their attachment to sin while they were alive. We're not talking about sins like adultlery, what we Catholics call mortal sin. We're talking about something small and habitual. Maybe the person in question spends their money on frivolous things that would be better spent on something to help another. If we die with this attachment, we would not find heaven appealing, because we are still tied to this world. Purgatory is the place where our souls are purified in the burning love of God, who loves us so much that He wishes that none would perish.

In the 2nd book of Maccabes (one of the books of the Old Testament that was a fully accepted part of Christian canon for around 1500 years until the Protestant reformation, interestingly enough), there is mention of two Jewish soldiers who have fallen in battle. Their compatriots, in laying out the bodies, were horrified to see that they had carried pagan amulets on their person. The soldiers pray for the souls of their deceased brethren. Now, if they've died, there's only a few places they could go. Finding the amulets means that they're probably not in heaven. Well, if they're in hell, praying isn't going to do them a bit of good.

Early Christians believed in the existence of purgatory. Vibia Perpetua, a young Roman woman in North Africa who was martryed in the early years of the Church, left writings and her tale of her imprisonment, where she had many beautiful visions. In one of those, she saw her brother who died young, trying to drink some water where he was, but he was unable to. When she awoke, she prayed for her brother's soul, and, the next night, saw her brother able to quench his thirst because of the aid of her prayers.

3. The Pope: Again, I can see that you're using this discussion on Limbo to bring up other uniquely Catholic things in order to attack them. Again, no, the word "pope" isn't in the Bible. However, every time a list of the apostles is made, Peter's name is always first. Jesus named Simon "Peter" because he is the "rock on which I will build My church."

But wait, I hear you say! In Greek, the word used for rock is a different word than the one used for Peter, one meaning a small pebble, and the other meaning a rock. That's true. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the words, in Aramaic, are the same.

It is Peter who speaks to the crowd in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. It is Peter who, through prayer to Jesus, raises Tabitha/Dorcas from the dead. It is Peter who Paul speaks to after his conversion, and thus is personally vetted as trustworthy to the other Christian. Peter is rather important here.

Through historical evidence, we know that Peter went from Antioch to Rome. Some early letters show that, from the very beginning, primacy was given to the bishop of Rome(which is what the pope is)in matters of doctrine. One letter from a church in Asia Minor about a doctrinal dispute, is sent to Peter for mediation, even though another apostle, I think one of the James's, was closer.

We can trace the line of popes from Peter all the way to our current Pope Benedict XVI. We do not believe that the pope is without sin, or inpeccable. Popes can sin just like the rest of us believers, and some have done so rather spectacularly. While it looks like the pope has this immense power, it's actually a huge burden that he shares with Christ. He is the embodiment of servant leadership, and that's actually one of his titles, "servant of the servants of God". He must be able to trust the Holy Spirit to guide him through prayer and through other Christians in order to be that living link between the early Church and into the future, to show "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

As for limbo...if you'll read what I wrote before, I explained this. Limbo was a theological theory that had been widespread in the Church, but there has never been an official pronouncement from the Vatican or an ex-cathedra statement from the Pope that said that limbo was a real place, and that, definitively, that's where unbaptized babies go. I looked. It was a popular theory, just like how the idea of illness being caused by imbalances in bodily humors was popular, until we developed germ theory. As we grow, our understanding grows too.

Hope this helped and that you will read my responses, and not just write them off because of my faith.

Ravenamore

jeffstwin

"Attack" is a harsh word I wouldn't use, more like "expose" is along the lines.

Some folks may say that the Bible is outdated for its purpose today. I would beg to differ and greatly. I appreciate the information that ones that replied gave me. I have some knowledge of the Catholic church and its teachings but am unfamiliar to the history and tradition that it follows.

Let me add a little bit in regards to baptism and how it has no relevance in the 'infant baptism' angle. Infants are born in the most innocent of circumstances.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

In regards to baptism...Jesus himself said after his resurrection and before his acension into Heaven in Mark 16:16, HE that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned." It is impossible for babies to 'believe' when all they know is hunger and bowel movements. :-)
It is an act of putting to death the 'old man' of the ways of the world the sinner lives and putting on the 'new man' and living the life dedicated to Christ. As for whole households being baptized....that is a huge stretch to say that encompassed babies based on speculation rather than fact. Just because the word household is mentioned, doesn't mean that these homes all didn't have family members that were of age to understand, comprehend the message and then believe the gospel. The Phillipian jailor and Crispus (leader of the synagogue) "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. ACTS 18:8... You see that believing and hearing are instrumental in the development of faith. That would exclude babies and being baptized for the remission of their sins.

Romans 10:17 says

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. That's what causes us to believe and to act.

As for Peter being "pope"...again the Catholic church bans Popes from being married and we read of Peter having a mother-in-law. Behind every great man is a greater woman!!!!

Just some things to consider....thanks for reading.

MistyWolf

You have to be Catholic to be enlightened

__________________
They say it takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but then an entire life to forget them. Distance and time may separate us but friendship and memories won't.
~When someone you love becomes a memory, the memory becomes a treasure~
=^..^=

Ravenamore

Oh my gosh, how could I have been so silly? Your "exposure" has totally changed my life. Who would have thought that we should actually READ the Bible? I'm running out of the Church, post-haste!

...what, that wasn't what you were actually expecting here, were you?

You see, what you're doing here isn't changing my mind, because I've heard it before. Many, many times before. It's nothing new. We don't read the Bible, tradition doesn't matter, the pope's the antichrist (I have actually heard that one, believe it or not). It all boils down to, I'm going to hell because my faith is not exactly like yours.

I don't think there's a Catholic alive that would dare to say that the Bible is outdated and doesn't matter in this day and age. We believe it's the Word of God, just as you do. We read the Bible at three different points during our Sunday services, Old Testament, New Testament (usually an epistle of Paul) and a portion of the gospels.

The first few hundred years after Christ's ascension into heaven, there was a lot of writing done by the apostles and in the name of the apostles. Some were obviously inspired. Some were outright forgeries to push a particular spiritual agenda (the so called "Gospel of Thomas" has, not Christ, but either Judas or Simon of Cyrene die on the cross, with Jesus laughing at the stupid Jews who fell for it. The "Gospel of Mary Magdalen" has Christ say Mary's going to be the head of the Church, and Mary complains that Peter hates women, and he stole it from her.)There was also some work right up the middle, inspiring but not inspired. These dealt with things like the birth of the Virgin Mary, what happened to the apostles over the first century.

So what did the Church do for those few centuries while it was worked out what was the inspired Word of God and what wasn't? They listened to the early Church fathers, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and many others. These were the men who had received the Gospel message from the ones who were there with Christ, the heirs of the apostles, who passed the message on down through the ages.

While a lot of people have sung the praises of Tyndale for "giving the Bible back to the people", it seems most people have forgotten that for a large part of history, the vast majority of people were illiterate. Doesn't do any good to have a Bible if you can't tell what's in it. It's also nonsense that no one had access to the Bible before him, either.

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the missionaries to the Slavic peoples in the early centuries of the Church, were the creators of the Cyrillic alphabet, still used for languages like Russian. They developed the Cyrillic alphabet so the new Slavic priests could read and write in their own language. Missionaries to the British Isles did the exact same thing with Irish. If, like many people accuss us of, the Church used Latin Bibles to stop people from learning "the truth", they wouldn't have bothered with that.

Oh, and your "proof" against the pope being that Peter was married...yes, believe it or not, we Catholics know he was married. Clerical celibacy was not mandated until around the 11th century. In fact, there were several popes that were direct descendants from earlier ones. We've never said that didn't happen. The reason that, in the Western church, we have celibate clergy is that it caused a lot less problems. Celibate clergy can give their all to God without having to worry about their family. St. Paul even points that out as an advantage, because a married man has to be able to look out for his family, and a single man can stay focused on the Lord. In the Uniate (eastern Church)Rite Catholics, who have different liturgies and customs than the Western, or Roman, rite, priests can be married or they can be single. They have to be married before they become a priest, but they do have married priests. However, it's more common in the Eastern Rite churches for priests to be celibate.

Also, guess what? There are some married priests in the Roman Catholic Church today. They're men who converted to Catholicism who had been Anglican or Lutheran priests, which allow marriage. It's not really common, but it does happen, and, with permission, these men can continue their ministry.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the discipline of celibate clergy has never been, and will never be, infalliably taught. That means that, theoretically, the Western rite church might one day allow married priests. I don't see it happening, though. We've had about a 1000 years of celibate priests, and that does seem to work out well. Also, in a world where society seems to esteem lots of sex all over the place, having people who are just fine without it, and, in fact, grow in sole intimacy of God, is a good thing. It is a sign of contradiction, just like Jesus was.

For about 1500 years, Christians had no trouble at all with ideas of a celibate clergy, the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, infant baptism, and other things that people see as soley Catholic (or Orthodox, they believe the same thing, but no one gives them crap about it. I wonder why...). For 1500 years, no one had a problem with it. So was the Church in error for 1500 years? What happened to "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?"

And if they were, it's not like the Reformation restored people to the "ancient Church". There is no one Protestant faith. 10 new Protestant denominations appear roughly every week, adding to the thousands, yes, thousands that are already here. All say that they have the true word of God. They are the ones that interpreted the Bible correctly, even though apparently they're the only ones to do it in nearly 2000 years. People read the Bible, people interpret it how they want, and if they don't agree with their pastor, they pick up and go down the street to another church, or make their own church based on their interpretation. How can that be what God intended for His church?

MistyWolf

As I have said before I am Catholic, and my opinion of the bible is that is has been rewritten and reinterpreted for us to understand too many times. How do we really know that the way it was rewritten or reinerpreted is the way it was originally meant to be?... We don't.

I wouldn't say the Bible is outdated but it's not original .. it's accuracy can be questioned.

__________________
They say it takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but then an entire life to forget them. Distance and time may separate us but friendship and memories won't.
~When someone you love becomes a memory, the memory becomes a treasure~
=^..^=