Toadfish Monastery

It seems the fate of Limbo hangs in the balance...

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

Even when I was a child at a Catholic school I was never happy with the concept of limbo. It seemed like a fudge to get round awkward questions being raised about Original Sin.

This has always been a difficult subject for catholics to defend, but it's either limbo or hell for most of the human race. To be honest, I think the Pope will announce that this matter will be discussed in depth, and then everyone will hope it just goes away again.

The death of infants in particular has always struck me as an extraordinarily sensitive issue for all religions that don't believe in re-incarnation. Limbo has always struck me as a way of avoiding deciding whether the deceased were either very lucky (on the eternity time scale), popping-off before being able to sin), or very unlucky, popping off before being able to recant.

Bet Swatopluk knows the history of this to 5 decimal places ;) .

I suppose because I do not believe in a concept of Original Sin, nor am I Catholic, this tome doesn't affect me directly. However, it seems to me that Limbo doesn't quite fit into the "God elects people for salvation" ideology that has permeated Christianity until the last 200 years.

Now as for the idea that un-baptized babies go to Limbo, is that just for the Catholic babies?

I also didn't know that Limbo is where the people that died before Jesus was go, according to Catholicism. (Protestants I've spoken to say they're in Hell...)

Despite being (nominally) raised Church of England Protestant I had absolutely no idea what their line is on this.
A swift Google reveals that Edward VI booted the idea of limbo into the long grass in the 16th Century by declaring it non-existent.
I don't think that the C of E are that keen on a traditional fiery Hell for anyone these days, let alone tots.
One interesting argument from the (possibly non-mainstream) ex-Bishop of Durham was that the elect couldn't be happy in Heaven knowing others were in Hell. Presumably if they could be happy under those circumstances, they wouldn't deserve to be in Heaven.

For all I know this may be up there with the Babel fish argument, in terms of theological soundness, but it has a certain logic.

Could it be that extensive discussion for years is going to leave Limbo in Limbo?

The cynical answer (as mentioned in the articles) might be that limbo was taken out of limbo to level the playing field with other religions, especially when recruiting in countries with high infant mortality. In which case, doing nothing might not be an option.
Not sure I'm that cynical myself, given how far the Pope is prepared to be unpopular in other doctrinal areas.

The offical position of the Church on unbaptised infants isn't that they necessarily go to Hell; it's basically "we're not sure what happens, but we trust God to do the right thing.  Just to be safe, though, get your kids baptised as soon as you can" (I'm paraphrasing a little, of course).  If that's the status quo, then it may work better than the idea of Limbo... if the purpose of these changes is to make Catholicism "work" better in areas with high infant mortality.

I was kind of torn on this poll. I've really gotten to old to Limbo any more. It's just not good for my back. I'm all for the younger folks keeping it up....if they're good at it. It's fun to watch. And the music is always fun.
(Limbo stick??? --> :donatello:)


Everybody Limbo!

How low can you go?

Not all the way to Hell, it seems.


If the Pope does away with purgatory, I'll sue! I have beachfront property there!

Quote from: Opsanus tau on October 06, 2006, 09:28:00 PM

If the Pope does away with purgatory, I'll sue! I have beachfront property there!

Yeah.  I was sort of counting on Purgatory, just in case my agnostic position turned out to be disasterously wrong.

I always admire the adaptation of faith to modern requirements and alteration of the leading figures postitions on belief and practice. One of my favourites is the Eruv, whereby Jews who observe the Sabbath law against carrying anything in a public place will, within the Eruv, be able to carry objects and push pushchairs and wheelchairs without worrying they are breaking Orthodox Jewish law. An Eruv is made by connecting up poles - for example street light poles, with wire in such a way that they completely surround the area where observant Jews want to carry. The area thus counts as "home" (all the dwellings within become "private") wherein these activities are allowed.

I don't have a clue what happens to baby boys who die before circumcision. Would they go somewhere different to baby girls? But then circumcision is prescribed on the eighth day of life so I guess it might only be a problem if they died during circumcision. (sorry, distasteful). I suspect they go the same place everyone else does. Dust to dust. Except I've never seen any proof that we start out as dust.

If the religious believe in G-d and it was G-d that told them about limbo, how can it be questioned? 

(I have the same issue with all "interpretations" - I like the clear cut stuff - do not kill thy neighbour's ass - if we were meant to understand and obey why make it so obscure it needs centuries of de-coding?).

I've never heard of a Christian group that says that people that lived before Christ would go to Hell...

Of course, i'm more of a product of Southern Evangelical teachings, and that tradition is MUCH less stringent than that of most of the Northern US's Evangelical tradition.

I was raised in a religious tradition that stated that nobody else was entitled to say WHO was going to Hell, as it is none of your business what others do or don't do...sort of a "take care of YOU, God will sort it all out, and YOU ain't God, honey!"

Looks like the wait goes on...

http://tinyurl.com/m3ojr (http://tinyurl.com/m3ojr)

Quote from: Sibling ChattyI've never heard of a Christian group that says that people that lived before Christ would go to Hell...

With an AKA like Al Dante, I should know about all this stuff. (I'm not saying I do. Just that I should.) So, let me enlighten you...

Many Christian traditions hold that everyone who lived and died before Christ went to hell (although the righeous, in some traditions, went into a less punitive subdivision of hell sometimes called "the Limbo of the Patriarchs" -- which may or may not be different from the limbo for unbaptized infants that the Pope is talking about. In any event, the Limbo of the Patriarchs is now empty, so it doesn't really matter whether the Pope abolishes it or not.)

Why is that part of hell now empty, you ask? Well, when Christ died, and rose on the third day, what did He do with all that spare time? I bet you thought He spent it at His analyst's (or his chiropractor's) office working through his cruci-fixation, right? But no. Apparently He spent that time going to hell to rescue the righeous and bring them to heaven. This event is called "the harrowing of hell," and in some versions it's been embellished into a heroic epic of sorts, where Christ had to fight all kinds of Gandalf-Balrog-style battles to free hell's captives. The tradotion of the harrowing of hell is reflected in some versions of the Apostle's Creed:

...Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father...

This ingenious tradition not only explains the time delay for the resurrection on the third day, and what happened to the righeous before Christ, but it also gives millions of kids a rare opportunity to say "hell" in church.

However, some versions translate the line as "He descended to the dead" which is apparently just as reasonable a translation. And some denominations -- including the United Methodists -- omit the line entirely.

Actual Biblical justification for the tradition is, as one might imagine, rather sparse. IIRC, there's a line here and there about Christ "leading the captives" and another about His "triumphal procession" and things like that which have been interpreted to refer to the harrowing of hell.

- infernAL
(Ooops, I said I wasn't going to do that here...)
- Allenbatrachus

Quote from: beagle on October 07, 2006, 07:43:48 PM
Looks like the wait goes on...

http://tinyurl.com/m3ojr (http://tinyurl.com/m3ojr)

Taking a quote from that article

Quote"This pope does not like leaks," a source said.

Maybe that is partly why this issue of limbo is so difficult. If it was abolished would the inhabitants leak out? 

(apologies for irreverance - underlying it is a serious consideration. abolishing anything in the physical realm, even something that is an idea rather than a physical entity, leaves trails behind. What would be the actual result of abolishing something in a spiritual sphere?).

Tricky one. Seeing as you can't destroy information without increasing entropy, I'm guessing Hell will get slightly hotter.
On the other hand, if Limbo was both created and destroyed by humans, then a Divine raised eyebrow may be the only consequence in the spiritual plane.

Ooh, I applaud you there, beagle.

One way to look at things is to say that God created the world and man created the beliefs and laws.

I stand with NoName. If it makes sense, as in keeping the peace by not killing, then it seems to be God's making.

If it doesn't make sense, as in baby boys not circumsized on the 8th day go to Hell, then to me it is a man law, and therefore not binding to a religious pirate sibling such as myself. Homey don't play laws that aren't fair.

my overall opinion on the baby to hell thing is.... what kind of a religion sends babies to hell?

and don't some people say Hell isn't as much of burning lakes of fire as a seperation from god? and Limbo would be like, without god.

unless he made like, weekly visits  or something.

I don't see why the afterlife has to be a binary situation anyway. why can't everyone go to the same place, but God, being as omnipotent as I've heard he is, just make it as good for others as he deems.

the word limbo, to me, means either the game, or the greek limbo in hades. where nothing much happens....

I honestly don't care what the Pope says... but from the first article, I must point out this great quote:


"An article in the UK's Times newspaper this week suggested that the "Pope - an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic - is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to heaven"."

yes, the Pope is such an acknowledge authority on all thigns Islamic.... :D

~Quetzy

Ahhh, Sibling Al, I think I have it.

I'm pretty much of the "You show me 'zakly WHERE in the Bible it says that" school of theology. That eliminates centuries of posturing and positing and...bull excretion used to curry favor.

Limbo, harrowing, etc are all constructs built by Man to further some agenda. (And I sez 'the hell with THAT'.) From the git-go, people been puttin' their politics, their agenda, their "I want" before the words that were originally written on inspiration from God. THAT's where the whole mess-up comes from.

Like I said, the hell with it. Of course, that's pretty much what the Bible says about it, too...

Oh, well, if somebody wants to 'add on' or 'translate' in their agenda, there's not a lot most folks can do about it, except ask What the HELL was THAT??

::)

Quote from: Sibling Queztacotl the Kneptionier on October 09, 2006, 12:20:30 AM
I don't see why the afterlife has to be a binary situation anyway.

I always wondered about that, myself.

The world, with it's myriad cultures, languages and diverse people seems, well diverse.

If, you suppose that the Creator intended all this diversity to take place ... can you just imagine the chaos that will ensue if all folk are relegated to an "Either-Or" situation?

Wherefore MUST it be an "either-or"? Why not an afterlife JUST as diverse (if not more-so) as the during-life?

Why not many, many different outcomes?

And, where is it written in giant burning letters in the sky, that once you're in one place or the other, you're stuck there forever after?

I mean, the Creator seemed to take SUCH pains to preserve free will, to only snatch it away again during the afterlife? Because THAT is what it is, really, if a soul is stuck in one place for all eternity ... no more free will.

As for me, I don't really know what it will be (if anything at all).  But, I'm not worried about it, either:  if even 1/10 of the propaganda about God is true, then likely it will turn out okay for everyone.

Even the Hitler's of the world ...

Quote from: QuetzyI don't see why the afterlife has to be a binary situation anyway.

Given that the previous step is actually binary (either you are alive or you aren't)...
;)
Seriously speaking (or not?), the abolishment of limbo wouldn't affect the RR message of "all aborted babies go to hell"?

Quote from: beagle on October 07, 2006, 10:54:58 PM
Tricky one. Seeing as you can't destroy information without increasing entropy, I'm guessing Hell will get slightly hotter.

As an aside, I notice that TOP has deleted the original "Last Post" thread. Makes Beagle's observation strangely poignant.

Anyway, Limbo. I'm not a theologian, but as a lapsed catholic I can recognise that this problem goes to the very roots of catholicism.

We were / are taught that everyone is born with "Original Sin". This dates back to the expulsion from the garden of Eden, and all men/women are born with it. The point was that original sin was permanent - it was a stain on the soul that could never be erased. If you had original sin on your soul, you went to hell for it, no questions asked.

Enter Jesus. He died for our sins, and because of him, original sin was erased from your soul, but only when you were baptised into the church. Everyone else burned.

Limbo was to deal with the awkward question of why should innocent babies burn in hell forever.

Abolishing Limbo would mean the catholic church admitting that the concept of Original Sin was false. They can't do that - it was the reason given for Jesus dieing on the cross.

Limbo might be a daft idea, but don't underestimate how difficult this question is for the Pope.

Quote from: The Black Spot on October 11, 2006, 01:42:09 AM

Quote from: beagle on October 07, 2006, 10:54:58 PM
Tricky one. Seeing as you can't destroy information without increasing entropy, I'm guessing Hell will get slightly hotter.

As an aside, I notice that TOP has deleted the original "Last Post" thread. Makes Beagle's observation strangely poignant.

Of course they could easily restore it from a backup. If it was an accident. Which I'm sure it was. ;)

I think the first one to blame is St.Augustine for actually stating that unbaptized children (including those dying in the womb) go to hell forever. The idea of purgatory would probably have looked as wishy-washy to him too. I also consider him as the main culprit for several other inhuman doctrines. Given his personal behaviour to certain human beings (esp. his de facto wife he "lived in sin with") I never could stand the guy (but some of his contemporay "fathers of the church" are not far behind).

Even Limbo does not solve the problem of those that lived between the resurrection and the time the missionaries reached their region of the world.
One of the great medieval mystics (either Tauler or Seuse) had a much better idea (though never officially accepted). If someone dies unbaptized without it being his own fault (e.g. no missionary reached his country yet) God himself may come to him in the  moment of death and baptize him and thereby save him (or her).
This is of course an infringement on the church monopoly (some dogmatists even claim(ed) that God himself could not reverse a papal dictum) and therefore unacceptable.

Out of curiosity, what's the theological foundation for salvation of catechumens (i.e. those who have expressed a desire for baptism and are studying in preparation for it) and "baptism of blood" (i.e. an unbaptised person receiving the benefits of baptism by dying for the church)?  Both of these examples are listed in the Catechism as means of salvation, but neither involves a ritualized sacrament of baptism.  If the Catholic church already acknowledges enough theological wiggle-room to let these things in, how difficult would it be to come up with something that allows unbaptised babies in?

Also, consider this (though I doubt that the Catholic church will be taking my suggestions): one justification I've heard for infant baptism (as opposed to "believer's baptism" practised in some other denominations) is that the parents agree (and, one assumes, have faith) on the baby's behalf; there desire for the baby's baptism is taken as a proxy for the baby's desire.  If this rational works for baptism, why not use it in combination with the existing doctrine that catechumens are saved?

The Catholic church already teaches that:
- the unbaptised faithful who wish for baptism are saved
- the faith of a parent and his or her desire for baptism of their baby are sufficient to allow the baby to be baptised.

Why not combine those two ideas and say that if faithful parents are working toward baptism for their baby, their baby is considered a catechumen for purposes of salvation without baptism?

Everyone "wins" - the Church doesn't have to come up with new theology, babies don't go to Hell (not Catholic babies, at least), and people will still feel compelled to baptise their infants.

This whole discussion is redolent of my own reasons for walking away from the Catholic Church (and later all organized religion) in the first place.
Generalising, the 'Rule of Law' is, I think, a necessary modality of human justice, but, on it's own, has a strong tendency to degenerate into picayune disputation of interpretations. It needs to be tempered by the 'Rule of Justice', and most successful human legal systems do this by a careful selection and review of judges.
This 'argument' seems, to me, to be pervaded by the desire to impose Justice on the 'Rule of Law', and that doesn't seem to sit well with 'dogma'. :-\