I found this on another Catholic forum:

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:41 AM']See, what's interesting to me though is that there are lots of things that we believe that have never *formally* been "defined" - it's quite a loophole. Most the people on these boards feel free to pick and choose what parts of the CCC are binding on all believers and what parts aren't (contraception, for instance, versus Islam's God being our God, death penalty, grave social and government obligations, etc.). That sounds pretty subjective and relative, to me.

I've seen threads were a whole slew of quotes will pop up in an attempt to prove that if you don't believe something, you're not Catholic. But here's a whole slew of quotes that have suddenly become very relative.
[right][snapback]850166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Aren't you the one picking and choosing, and making the interpretation of formal doctrine something quite subjective? The fact is the baltimore catechism style limbo theory is incompatible with the hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants that the universal catechism speaks of.
If limbo is true, we have no hope, unbaptized infants simply go to this third place (or maybe its just the nicest pit of hell depending on who you ask), the problem is solved, why speak of hope?

There are plenty of aspects of Catholic theology that are in the realm of opinion and speculation. Generally these are things which are not strictly in the realm of that which has been revealed. Just as the details of the mystery of free-will and grace have not been altogether revealed, and thus numerous interpretations and theories are possible, so too with the fate of unbaptized infants. Limbo theories are often a twisted over-simplification of the matter. The Catholic Faith teaches that there is heaven and hell, not heaven, hell and limbo (purgatory is a temporal not an eternal state so I've omitted it). How do you understand limbo anyway? Would you say it is hell minus the positive punishments? Heaven minus beatific vision? A third place/state altogether? Perhaps a state of pure nature and new kind of earth in which the unbaptized who have no actual sin live out their eternity in a merely natural happiness Jehova's Witness style? I am convinced that any of the classical approaches to limbo theory have insurmountable problems and heretical tendencies. And one can produce magisterial statements throughout history which pose problems for those who think that dogma favours limbo.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:41 AM']P.S. I bet if somebody tried telling the common lay person or a pope hundreds of years ago that limbo didn't exist, they would think you were a heretic at worst and a very uneducated Catholic at best.
[right][snapback]850166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Many esteemed theologians of the past couple hundred years have rejected limbo, or at least what people commonly have in mind when they speak of limbo. For example Griolamo Savonarola, Ambrose Catharinus (glorified bodies), Cardinal Cajetan (vicarious baptism of desire), Heinrich Klee (enlightened choice at the moment of death), Cardinal Journet (participation in the resurrected body of Christ).

According to Divine Revelation and the deposit of Faith there are two eternal dwellings, heaven and hell. The positing of new eternal abodes cannot be grounded in Revelation, it is conjecture. This is why perhaps the majority of theologians in the limbo tradition equate it with hell. It is hell minus the positive punishments, or a kind of "painless" hell, if that makes any sense at all. The later (post medieval) versions are often based on an idea of pure nature which I would say is pure nonsense. And nevermind the fact that the Church condemned the ultra-augustinian version of limbo theory present in Jansenism. I tend to consider the pop-limbo theory that crept into certain local catechisms in the not too distant past to be a kind of creeping Jansenism.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[i]Almost two years ago I rambled on about limbo for some time on a certain thread. My position remains essentially the same to this day (with some exceptions). I've decided to save myself some typing and do a bit of copy and paste. Sadly, it is pretty much informal babbling, I wish it was more systematic and less repetitive[/i]

I claim that:

1. Limbo is a theory, not a doctrine taught by the Church.
2. I think the theories of limbo (as I understand them) are problematic.
3. I believe we have reason to hope for the salvation of the unbaptised babies.
4. I think an adequate interpretation of what has been revealed is possible that does not require positing limbo.
5. I have no problem with people holding to limbo and I don't think my opinion is necessarily correct; it's just what I think based on my limited, fallible knowledge.

I've always considered the idea of limbo to be linked with the neo-scholastic distortions of the medieval theory of pure nature.. Since I reject the idea of pure nature I tend to not see the necessity of positing limbo.
And while it might be the case that certain aspects of the theology pertaining to limbo are a substantial part of the Catholic tradition, I tend toward the idea that much of the formal theologizing on limbo in the post-Trent period is baggage that the Church would do well to shed, which perhaps is something of what the Pope has encouraged by possibly trying to redirect and reorient the discussion on these issues. I do believe that much of the Tridentine theorizing on limbo has come under attack and scrutiny in late 20th century Theology. For the Pope to support the neo-scholastic formulations would be to ignore the more recent developments.

Limbo is almost exclusively a matter of speculative Theology and different approaches are possible whilst still remaining within the bounds of orthodoxy. I would not absolutize specific traditions or theories as if they constitute a part of Sacred Tradition. This is similar to the issue of predestination. There are various schools, various dominant approaches during different periods, different controversies, and definitive teachings which guide the debate. One can be an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Molinist, etc. and still be orthodox. Heck, one can come pretty darn close to Calvinism and still be orthodox.
Similarly with limbo, I think one can reject the term altogether and still remain in orthodoxy. There are developments in the Theology of nature and grace which reorient the understanding of the issues surrounding limbo.

And the idea that novelty on the part of a Roman Pontiff is suspect is hardly consistent with the history of the development of doctrine. What's so new or unusual about that? Ultimately it is the authority of the Magisterium alone that can interpret and expound upon such matters with any real weight. The term limbo and much of the theological speculation that comes along with that term are matters of small "t" tradition. And the Pope is not bound to the consensus of the Fathers or medievals by any means. If this was the case the definition of the Immaculate Conception would hardly be consistent considering a large case can be made against it on these terms. Consider how many Fathers even attribute actual sin to Our Lady, or how many great doctors argue against the doctrine (St. Bernard and Aquinas for example). Developments and even dogmas can fly in the face of centuries of theologizing because private speculative Theology is not synonymous with the deposit of Faith. And the Church's understanding of certain issues is not always adequate in times past. New breakthroughs (such as Scotus' great defense of the Immaculate Conception) lead to new directions and developments which render older views and approaches obsolete, even if they were held by many great Fathers and Doctors. And Augustine had many novel views that were foreign to the Fathers before him. Some have become standard or even dogmatic, others have been rejected. I think it is best to leave such discernment to the Magisterium which has such a charism. Otherwise you will likely fall into error. If you hold the current Pontiff or Magisterium in suspicion this is a clear sign of this danger of error.

It's been a while since I've really looked into the theories on limbo but I have some impressions that remain from past study. First of all there have been many different theories proposed throughout the course of the Church's history; ranging from the positive damnation of unbaptized infants, to their full sharing in beatific vision and a bodily resurrection. I think the commonly proposed view of these babies partaking of a state of natural happiness is problematic for a number of reasons. For one I think it's inner logic suffers from a kind of residual Platonism which is not authentically Catholic. I would also argue that its post-Trent formulations, which were largely based on Thomas' theory of natural happiness, are tainted by various reactionary trends in the Augustinian tradition (contra Pelagius). For example the concept of original sin based primarily in terms of the positive effects of concupiscence as opposed to the negative loss of original justice. This leads to a working concept of nature which obscures the 'imago Dei' and is something more or less opposed to grace. Whereas I believe the understanding of nature as being fundamentally ordered toward grace is more Catholic and would give speculation on the limbo issues a different inner dynamic. The concept of pure nature is more or less speculative nonsense based on inadequate trends in Theology. Something else that I think is important to consider is the Theological development on this subject in the East, independent of the Augustinian and scholastic traditions. Here we find a substantially different thrust on these issues which might bring some new life into the discussion.
I'm far from an expert on the subject and am just spouting off for what its worth. If I am way off and/or totally wrong so be it.
Oh, something else I wonder about is the influence of things such as Jansenism on the more recent development of limbo. There was definitely a kind of Augustinian extremism in the air for a while there. A Pope formally condemned the Jansenist view which was basically at the same time a condemnation of the Augustinian view which was so influential on the development of this theory.

The Theological traditions that opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception did so largely based on theological problematics that were insurmountable at the time. Later breakthroughs (e.g., Scotus) rendered these past theologies obsolete and paved the way for the eventual definition. So now when we look back on theological traditions we see errors and shortcomings in the reasoning and conclusions because our understanding of the deposit of faith has deepened. What was inconceivable at one time (no pun intended) is now dogma. And it should also be kept in mind that the dogma is not a complete innovation because in the earlier theological traditions there is a discernable trend of believing that Our Lady possessed the highest possible honor and perfection of sanctity possible. The earlier theologies had certain confusions and lacked an adequate understanding of the operations of the Redemption which could allow for something like the Immaculate Conception.

I think an analogy can be made between this development and that of limbo. Earlier theologies wrestled with lofty problems on a speculative level on which Scripture has nothing explicit to offer. These speculations were made within primitive frameworks of understanding and lacked the foundations necessary to really resolve the problems. Hence various compromise theories were proposed. The damnation of the unbaptized souls proposal rests upon theological premises which are outdated so one can say that the conclusions are faulty. (You have to look at more than just the fact that so and so said it, or x number of people said it. The actual validity of the inner logic must be examined in light of the Church's current understanding of theology). Similarly the natural happiness approach is naive in some ways and perhaps presupposes a theology of nature/grace that is incomplete and lacking. So the point is I think there is room for a legitimate development on this issue that may lead to a definition of some kind in the near future based on the deeper understanding of theology that the Church has now. And this is an important question especially today in light of the tragedy of abortion. Where have all the babies gone? Where do people's dead infants and miscarried children go? Are they suffering eternal torment in hell? Are they in a state of natural happiness and able to interact with the souls in heaven? In other words will mothers be with their babies in heaven? Or are they in a natural happiness but forever separated from the souls in heaven? Are they perhaps little bundles of joy in heaven praying for their parents on earth? There are other possibilities too I imagine. I think a case can be made that they are in heaven and that this view has a place in tradition (esp. in the East) and that much of the limbo speculations have been misguided. A discernable trend in the theologies has been trying to do justice to God's goodness in the face of the current understanding of original sin, nature and grace, salvation, etc. It is most certainly false to assert the damnation of these holy innocents (the carthage problem is not much of a problem-- talk later), in my opinion natural happiness is a kind of by-product of underdeveloped Theology, and I believe that the more pleasant alternative will prove to be most reasonable and will hopefully be revealed as the true teaching through the teaching authority of the Church. This will do justice to the nature of God as Absolute Goodness, Love, etc. and to the fuller Catholic vision of the world in relation to God as well as the oikonomia. It will also be more expressive of the truth about human nature and original sin which is not tainted with a kind of creeping Gnostic dualism. It would also elucidate more God's Trinitarian dynamism and relatedness to the world as opposed to the otherness. I think this is why the "more pleasant alternative" comes more naturally to the East; their theological development has a deeper awareness of this fundamental relatedness and Trinitarian dynamism as well as the cosmic dimensions of the Incarnation and Redemption.


[quote] From Fr. Mateo:
"The notion of a Limbo for unbaptized babies never was a doctrine of the Church and the Church never taught it. At most it was a speculation on the part of certain theologians, and one never hears of it nowadays. There is no "official doctrine on the subject." God has not revealed the destiny of babies who die before baptism."

Fr. William Saunders:
"Note that the Church has never officially defined the doctrine of limbo. Rather, limbo is a theological supposition that became a popular way of dealing with a teaching of our Lord regarding the necessity of baptism for eternal salvation and what happens to the souls of individuals who die without being baptized."

Fr Phil Bloom:
"It [limbo] was never taught as an 'official' church doctrine"

Mario Derksen:
"The Limbo of Infants is the traditional opinion of the Church, and it originated with the thought of St. Augustine. It's not a doctrine; you're not required to believe it as a Catholic. We speculate about this."

From a popular Catholic Q&A:
"Limbo was a theological speculation."
"Limbo is not now and never was an official doctrine of the Church. It was simply a popular theory concerning the eternal fate of unbaptized but innocent persons."

Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C.
"A well-known pre-Vatican II catechetical source, Kilgallon and Weber’s Christ in Us, terms it [limbo] just 'the usual explanation of theologians.' In sum, even if the existence of limbo was once taught by some teachers of the Church, it was most certainly not irreformable or 'unchangeable' teaching."

Fr. Jim Corkery:
"The teaching office of the Church has never taken any official position on the question of limbo. Unofficially, limbo may have enjoyed a certain favour for a time."

Very Rev.Kevin Michael Quirk, JCD (Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston)
"With regard to Limbo, the Church has never officially taught the existence of Limbo and has never officially denied the existence of Limbo. The best teaching on the four final things (death, judgment, heaven, and hell) can be found in the papal encyclical Benedictus Deus by Pope Benedict XVI."

"Theologian and one of the authors of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church Bishop Alessandro Maggiolini has explained that limbo no longer appears in Christian doctrine, but instead we should consider that unbaptised babies as simply entrusted to the mercy of God. He said limbo was never defined as a dogma, but was a 'theological hypothesis not solidly founded on Revelation.'"

From the OSC Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It should be noted, however, that no official teaching ever advocated this notion [limbo]."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not use the term limbo nor does it present any theory of limbo.
"The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. 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 . . the great mercy of God allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism." (CCC 1257-1261)

The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent did not even mention limbo.

From the Encarta Encyclopedia:
"Although the existence of limbo has frequently been discussed by theologians, the Roman Catholic church has no official position regarding the subject."
"The concept of limbo has remained similarly undefined and problematical in modern Roman Catholic doctrine."

Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article on NewAdvent.org indicates the intent of the article with these words: "to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject."

A statement from a Catholics United for the Faith:
"Limbo has never been a formally defined doctrine of the Church, but rather a theological opinion. What Catholics believe regarding children who die without Baptism is summarized in Catechism, no. 1261."

Another statement from CUF:
"Limbo has never been a formally defined doctrine of the faith, but rather is a theological opinion used to harmonize (a) the necessity of Baptism; (b) God’s universal salvific will (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4); and © the fact that such children are without actual sin. Despite contemporary ridicule, limbo remains a respectable theological opinion that may be held by the faithful." [/quote]


I certainly admit that there are dogmatic teachings that relate to the theory of limbo, but that does not mean that limbo is dogmatic or the only possible solution to the problems posed. The common, Thomistic-based theory of limbo is one interpretation or proposed solution to the problem of infant, pre-baptismal death. There have been other theories and interpretations.
For example Cardinal Cajetan held the view that the desire of the parents to have their child baptized would be sufficient in the case of the child's death.
Here is a kind of intermediate theory:

[quote] "The great Swiss Cardinal, Charles Journet (A.D. 1891-1975), one of the few men made a cardinal because of his theological expertise, explained the doctrine of limbo in terms of salvation. According to Journet, children in limbo share in salvation because of the resurrection of Christ, in which it is absolutely certain they will share. Thus along with the natural happiness which is theirs because of their innocence, they will have the gifts of immortality and a happy social life with the rest of the human race, in particular with their parents. The fact that they don't share in the beatific vision does not deprive them of the other real and necessary elements of human happiness, or the happy association with those who do possess the beatific vision. Cardinal Journet says they will know and love Christ as the cause of their resurrection. Their resurrection will be their share in the salvation won by Christ for the human race of which they are a part. This view has the happy characteristics of being based only on dogmatic certainties: the resurrection of the dead, the necessity of baptism for supernatural life, and of emphasizing that our salvation consists not only in the supernatural beatific vision, even though this is its essential aspect, but also in the miraculous restoration of natural life, the survival of our person because of Christ's triumph over death." [/quote]

Using the argument of baptism by desire, some theologians speculated that God in His mercy would look favorably upon the desire for salvation of the Church, the family, the unbaptized infant, and even of Himself, and welcome the unbaptized child to Heaven. Here again the Magisterium provided succinct guidance. Pope Pius XII asserted that "an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant, this way is not open" (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84).

I don't mean to say that I think limbo is false and no one should hold to it. I think it is a theory that conforms to the revealed datum. But I do think it is a matter of speculative Theology and one can deny it and remain orthodox (so long as one does not reject the definitive teachings in the process).

[quote] James Likoudis:
"The Catholic Church teaches that "God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (CCC n. 1257). God can make whatever exceptions He wishes as regards unbaptized infants. Perhaps those unborn children killed by abortion in odium fidei (in real hatred of Christ and His teachings) may have the status of martyrs (like the Holy Innocents). It is true that Limbo cannot be taught as certain Catholic doctrine proposed by the Magisterium, but it has not been definitively rejected by the Magisterium either." [/quote]

And studying the history of this problem reveals that there have always been different theories. I think a study of the traditions of the East in this regard would be beneficial since they tend to have a more positive view of the fate of unbaptized infants. Do you deny that the Theology of the East is a valid part of Catholic tradition?
And I think the Immaculate Conception analogy was most fitting (there are many other examples too). The point was that there have often been theological problems with differing theories and proposed solutions. The pre-Scotistic solutions to the problem of the Immaculate Conception were inadequate and produced results that by today’s standards were often heretical. I think this is a good analogy with the various understandings of the status of dead, non-baptized infants. It's conceivable that someday a better theory will be proposed and possibly even endorsed as official doctrine. If this hypothetical theory were to disagree with Aquinas or Augustine I don't think it would matter. As I briefly indicated before, I think much of the weakness of the more common approaches to limbo is the conception of nature and grace that is implied. I do not believe in 'pure nature' and I think for the medievals this was not meant to be a literal thing that actually exists somewhere but was more a hypothetical thing. I think the common theories of limbo are perhaps a bit simplistic and do not do justice to the theophanic nature of reality nor to the contiguous, teleological ordering of nature and grace. But anyway, the discussion is more on the status of limbo as a doctrine or theory rather than on my own personal views on the matter of non-baptized babes.

There are many aspects of Divine Revelation which I believe are not taken into account with the standard theory of limbo. I will present just a few things to consider. There are many more.

God can raise up sons of Abraham from the stones. God's ability to bestow sanctifying grace (the phrase "sons of Abraham" suggests those who are in covenant relation with God, which is what sanctifying grace does) is not limited to the normal means of salvation.

The state of original sin is primarily a lack of sanctifying grace. God has the power to remedy this lack of grace even without a Sacrament. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote when he said that God "is not bound to the visible sacraments." - Summa II. 68.2.c.

To deny this fact is to betray a kind of triumphalism which is contrary to the teachings of the Church and which puts God in a box.

There are examples of this from Scripture. Also the fact of the souls of the just who died before the coming of Christ. Also the teaching on baptism by desire is an application of this principle.

Consider the fact of infant baptism. How is it that a person before the age of reason can receive baptism? Obviously I'm not challenging this practice, but the implications of it's inner logic apply to this issue. I'm just bringing it up for reflection. Since the early Church it has been taught that a catechumen who dies before being baptized will receive a baptism by desire. Considering the nature of infant baptism is it not conceivable that an infant who dies before the parents were able to have them baptized might receive a baptism by desire? Other such questions come time mind while reflecting on these things.

1 Cor 7:14 = "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy."
I bring up this verse because I think it also has significance for this issue. Consider what St. Paul is saying here and what it says about how God's justice manifests itself. Also good if pondered in connection with infant baptism and baptism by desire. A heathen husband is consecrated through his wife, their children are holy! These are huge statements. God's grace is powerful and radical.

Also consider the holy innocents. The Church has celebrated a feast in their honor since the fourth of fifth century. I like to read the prophecy which Matthew quotes regarding these babes.
"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more."
But this prophecy of Jeremiah goes on.
"There is hope for your future, says the Lord, and your children shall come back to their own country... Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he my darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord."

I believe that "the great mercy of God allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism", as the catechism says.
The theory of limbo stifles this hope because it claims to have a cut and dry rule for how God operates, but let us remember that God has not revealed limbo, it is a construct of human speculation. Besides having reasons for a hope which goes beyond the confines of the limbo theory, I also have positive criticisms of limbo; perhaps another time.

The opinion of Augustine of Aquinas or whoever does not make something part of Tradition. Much of the speculation on the Immaculate Conception was based on problems that had not been revolved (for example preservative redemption) and so things like a sanctification in the womb were posited which we know now to be false. Since things like this have happened in the past it seems logical to assume this could happen with limbo, and in fact it has. Some had posited that the souls of unbaptised babies burn in eternal hell fire. I doubt you hold this view. It's not a matter of something developing into it's opposite, when did I suggest that? I suggested there might be a tendency in the speculation on unbaptised babies analogous to the tendency in the speculation on the Immaculate Conception. For the latter the tendency was the highest level of sanctification for Our Lady. For some the highest level of sanctification included the stain of original sin, for some it even included actual sins. When the issues involved were understood more fully the full truth of the Immaculate Conception came to light. Part of my analogy was that it's conceivable (though not certain by any means) that the Church's understanding of the issues related to limbo might be deepened and the Church could move beyond positing states of pure natural happiness and pure nature and all of that, theories that I believe are problematic and inconsistent with other aspects of Theology. I actually think the issue of predestination is a better example of something similar. There is a certain amount of biblical data, certain dogmatic decrees and things connected with the issues of predestination, but not enough to give a definitive explanation of predestination. Thus there are a number of theories that explain and interpret the revealed data. I think this is true of unbaptised infants. There is some scriptural data, some dogma, and multiple possible interpretations of that data. You seem to want to absolutize one particular theory. I don't have a problem with that. I don't feel it's necessary for me to argue my view and try to convince anyone. If someone is convinced of limbo that's fine by me. Just as I'm not about to argue a particular theory of predestination with someone.

Perhaps you believe a particular version of limbo theory is the better approach because it's been around for a while. Whereas I hold my own view based on recent magisterial statements which avoid the term limbo and have a different thrust, namely the hope in God's mercy and power. I believe this is better considering these kinds of matters are known only to God anyway. Do you think that the Church cannot abandon the theory of limbo? Do you think the catechism and the Pope should use the term limbo and endorse some particular formulation of the theory?

The Church is not bound to particular traditions which offer different interpretations of that data. And certainly new, novel interpretations are acceptable and in fact normal. There are many instances of this occurring in the history of the Church.
How about an example: St. Augustine taught that sex was part of God's plan before the fall. That God intended Adam and Eve to have sex. The Fathers prior to Augustine taught the opposite, that carnal union was a consequence of the fall; therefore this was a radical and novel proposal. This is not a matter of dogma, but it's connected with more central truths of the faith and has implications. Had this novel teaching not been introduced we might believe that sex is just a by-product of the fall, not an icon of the Trinity manifested through man and woman as creatures made in the image of God. Perhaps marriage would not be described as the "primordial sacrament".
There are certainly many other examples. And as I've indicated before, there are other traditions in the Church besides limbo. Eastern Theology tends to hold that the unbaptised infants are "with Christ", which reminds me of an expression the Pope once used when he said that the babes are "with the Lord". Anyway, if some Theologian came along and proposed a totally new, novel interpretation of the revealed data that happened to deal with it in a better, fully way I don't see how that would be a problem at all, that's kind of Theologies job. Faith seeking understanding. And limbo does not demand our faith so it's not a seed of Theology.

And as I'm intimated before, I am somewhat influenced by Eastern Theology and appeal to their traditions as a source of fresh insight on these matters.
Here is a quote from one of Bishop Kallistos Ware's books:

[quote] Most orthodox theologians reject the idea of ‘original guilt,’ put forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church. Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam. Many western Christians believe that whatever a man does in his fallen and unredeemed state, since it is tainted by original guilt, cannot possibly be pleasing to God: ‘Works before Justification,’ says the thirteenth of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, ‘...are not pleasant to God ... but have the nature of sin.’ Orthodox would hesitate to say this. And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting games of Hell (Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the fall, on the whole followed Augustine, and in particular retained the idea of original guilt; but as regards unbaptized babies, he maintained that they go not to Hell but to Limbo — a view now generally accepted by Roman theologians. So far as I can discover, Orthodox writers do not make use of the idea of Limbo. It should be noted that an Augustinian view of the fall is found from time to time in Orthodox theological literature; but this is usually the result of western influence. The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila is, as one might expect, strongly Augustinian; on the other hand the Confession of Dositheus is free from Augustinianism). The Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less sombre than the Augustinian or Calvinist view.

But although Orthodox maintain that man after the fall still possessed free will and was still capable of good actions, yet they certainly agree with the west in believing that man’s sin had set up between him and God a barrier, which man by his own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since man could not come to God, God came to man. [/quote]

[Theoketos]

The Dopple-ganger L_D is my hero.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

wow.


what's the post character limit?

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jan 9 2006, 02:49 AM']Sure, but remember that all those quotes were by past popes.  Respecting the beliefs of our leader is certainly commendable, but do we reject the beliefs of past popes in doing so?
[right][snapback]850113[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We are not Protestants. It is not our job, as laymen, to classify Papal statements, and determine what exactly they are saying, or what authority they hold. This duty is given to the Bishops of the Church, and in a unique way, to the Bishop of Rome. It just so happens that he does not believe in Limbo. Because we cannot be more Catholic than the Pope, we know that Limbo is not a point of Catholic doctrine; otherwise, the Pope would be bound to accept it.

That is not to say we cannot personally believe in Limbo. It remains a valid theological opinion. So long as we recognize it as such, and do not elevate it to Church doctrine, we are free to express ourselves accordingly.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

Well, for now (as far as I can tell, and that seems pretty far), the Holy Father hasn't made any public statements on Limbo. I get a list of most of what he says as it is.

Limbo, as taught by St. Thomas (and others) allows for the natural and supernatural ends of babies, the latter part of which is when they too inherit the earth, I believe. It's theories like these that are fun to uphold.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 9 2006, 06:13 PM']Well, for now (as far as I can tell, and that seems pretty far), the Holy Father hasn't made any public statements on Limbo.  I get a list of most of what he says as it is. 
[right][snapback]850915[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not as Pope, no. But he did express himself when he was still prefect of the CDF, and there is no reason to believe he has changed his mind.

[quote]A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.

Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.

[b]In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.

"It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.

In "God and the World," published in 2000, he said limbo had been used "to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible" to ensure that they had the "sanctifying grace" needed to wash away the effects of original sin.[/b]

While limbo was allowed to disappear from the scene, the future pope said, Pope John Paul's teaching in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "The Gospel of Life" took "a decisive turn."

Without theological fanfare, Pope John Paul "expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament," the then-cardinal said.

[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm"]http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm[/url][/quote]

He did say explicitly that he was speaking personally, and not as Prefect of the CDF. Honestly, I don't imagine Benedict will settle the matter, as he seems content to leave theological opinions to theologians, and not introduce his personal opinions into the realm of his Papal magisterium.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

Oui.

Yeah, I'm content with personal interpretations.