Theologians to ask Pope to suspend limbo?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:33 AM']you're a trad? but you havent called me a heretic, liberal or damned me yet?
this is a sad day among my people...    
[right][snapback]808211[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not a bad traditionalist. Maybe I should make a distinction..

If I may sort of coin some terms, I'm not a doxological traditionalist, I'm more of a praxiological traditionalist. In other words I have traditionalist sensibilities when it comes to Liturgy, worship and Church discipline and practice, but theologically I would certainly be dubbed an enemy of the radical traditionalist camp.

[Aloysius]

it might not have been the same thread... haha I donno, there were like three threads on the same topic at the same time I remember bouncing around... that was the last Limbo Age of Phatmass. There appears to be arising another Limbo Age at present!!

I'm game to discuss it if you are.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 2 2005, 05:18 AM']it might not have been the same thread... haha I donno, there were like three threads on the same topic at the same time I remember bouncing around... that was the last Limbo Age of Phatmass.  There appears to be arising another Limbo Age at present!!

I'm game to discuss it if you are.
[right][snapback]808252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
hehehe, alright.. I should be off to take a nap soon (like 4 hours ago), but if you start a thread I'll be sure to dive in soon enough.

Unless you think this thread will suffice?

[N/A Gone]

yea, on another catholic forum I was on it was invested with "trads" who thought protestants were all hellbound scum, and as a hybrid I didnt make the most friends. But I frustrated many of them..

[Matty_boy]

Limbo would contradict the fact that God is a merciful God. He's too stringent on the rules to let the most innocent into heaven before they even had the ability to commit sin, so he puts them in an eternal play-crib.

[son_of_angels]

Personally, this is what I think. There are two states of being out of perfect communion with God, Purgatory and Hell. The first is for those who simply have a perfectible nature, but did not do so in life, while the latter is for those who have a nature unable to be perfected.

In my opinion, where someone has died without the POSSIBILITY of committing mortal sin, e.g. an aborted baby, someone mentally retarded, then it seems likely that their nature is in some way perfectible. Hence, they may go to Purgatory. The problem is that they never received Baptism, so there is no promise for reconciliation with God after death, so there in Purgatory they shall remain, awaiting the hope of Christ's final coming, when they shall be permitted to enter into the New Jerusalem.

Where someone without Baptism dies, while yet having the possibility of committing mortal sin, and where it is probable that they did so (for otherwise we would be saying one could be perfect without grace, which seems Semi-Pelagian to me) then it seems likely that they are in Hell suffering according to the nature afforded them.

Hence I am not completely opposed to the notion of Limbo, not as a place, but as a state of one's soul which is then divided into those Limbo souls who are in purgatory, and those souls who are in Hell. All who die without Baptism, and without the knowledge to be baptized, are in this non-substantial state of limbo, and are judged by God. Hence, if any of them commit mortal sin, their damnation rests on us.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Dec 2 2005, 11:49 AM']Limbo would contradict the fact that God is a merciful God.  He's too stringent on the rules to let the most innocent into heaven before they even had the ability to commit sin, so he puts them in an eternal play-crib.
[right][snapback]808394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'd like to know where the concept that mercy is defined by being lenient on just rules?

people who are in a state of original sin will, upon facing their maker, hide from Him. just like Adam and Eve did. they committed an actual sin, yes, but it was not the actual sin that caused them to hid from God-- it was the deficiency in their nature that they had just caused.

anyone with a fallen nature is attracted to the absence of God and the existence of themselves apart from Him. that's the nature of original sin.

[son_of_angels]

bump

[Aloysius]

just to be clear, these are unbaptized people who have a fallen nature that leads them to hide from God who are not culpable for any actual sin they may have committed. they cannot enter into the purification process unless God restores their fallen nature through some sort of crazy extraordinary means that we don't know about, that He hasn't felt necessary to reveal to us. But under the normal conditions we know God to operate under, with His Justice and Mercy, those people (even if they be infants) would completely justly left out of the beatific vision, because they have a fallen nature.

[tojo]

*observing with interest*

[Ash Wednesday]

I never thought limbo was ever actually in the catechism or considered definitive teaching -- just a theory and subject of speculation that floated up somewhere along the way in history.

The only thing that I would see as problematic is saying something like "babies that die before being baptised [i]automatically[/i] go to heaven" -- something like that came up in the news and it seemed like a red flag to me, because that would undermine the need for baptism -- and heck, people would use that to justify abortion and cloning.

I recall the catechism saying something about entrusting the unbaptised to the mercy of God but not making assumptions one way or another (I don't recall it mentioning limbo, either, but it's 4:30 a.m. and I'm zoned out.) It seems to me that it's always been the right route to not assume the state of someone's soul since only God is able to know such a thing.

Maybe that's why they would suggest dropping limbo to the pope...? I don't know. BXVI is the theologian, he'll figure it out.


Ack, I'm putting off my term's end work.

[Aloysius]

in the index of the catechism, you'll find the term "limbo" and it refers you to the catechism number you're referring to.

[tojo]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 4 2005, 11:24 PM']it seems to me that it's always been the right route to not assume the state of someone's soul since only God is able to know such a thing.
[right][snapback]811114[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:28 AM']awwww. I didn't mean it like that. I put in the word "actually" mainly because I thought people might be surprised that I don't accept the theory of limbo. Because I fancy myself a traditionalist, and traditionalists most often accept this theory. But maybe I'm deluded; maybe people don't perceive me as a traditionalist at all. Maybe I'm seen as a progressive..

I need to make a poll and see how people around here think of me.
[right][snapback]808204[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, you're a wild progressive...

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 4 2005, 09:41 PM']in the index of the catechism, you'll find the term "limbo" and it refers you to the catechism number you're referring to.
[right][snapback]811154[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ah, I see -- well it was 4:30 in the morning and on the brink of term's end when I posted that.