 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Flowerchild
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 31 |
| First Name: | Terri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Presbyterian to nothing to Lutheran to now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12th, 2007 01:03 am |
|
Hi all,
I hope that this question make some kind of sense. I hope that I even have enough knowledge to ask it correctly. First here is a little background.
I have recently told my husband about my interest in learning more about the Catholic Church. There is so much to be said for prayer, God's guidance and good timing. For those of you who have followed my story, telling my husband went far better than I could have ever hoped. Thank you to all who have had me in their thoughts and prayers. For all your support I can never say thank you enough.
Now the work comes for me to help him understand why I have the strong desire to become Catholic, and that Catholicism is not as crazy as he thinks it is.
Something came up on TV the other night about a religion and their changing what was believed. My husband chimes in and says "The Catholic Church does the same thing. Look at Limbo, the Pope decided that there was no more Limbo and now it's gone. How can the Pope make that kind of decision? Does the Pope have that kind of authority to make change like that? Can he change what folks are to believe where a soul will end up? If the Catholic Church looks at tradition as a large part of their belief then how can they change and say that limbo does not exist? What make one belief that takes faith more important over any other belief that takes faith?
I had no answer.
I looked up on catholic.com, and Karl Keating had written an article in "This Rock - Vol 12, Num 1, Jan 2001 - Out on a Limbo."
Here are a few of his thoughts:
Under the older understanding, he noted unbaptized infants who die, whether through miscarriage or abortion, enjoy complete natural happiness but do not see God face to face. They are not in heaven or hell but in a third state, limbo. Under the “novel teaching” of the new catechism, limbo is not mentioned, but it is said we can hope that God has made some provision through which such infants might get to heaven.
The new catechism implies that the infants might be able to achieve sanctifying grace before their particular judgment, though how this might happen we cannot say with any certitude. Some theologians speculate that the infants are given an opportunity not unlike that once granted the angels, before their fall, to accept or reject God. But we just do not know—and perhaps we never will know, down here.
Where does that leave us? In limbo, so to speak. A Catholic may accept limbo, or he may reject it. He is not a better or worse Catholic for doing one or the other. But he does need to think through the problem—where do unbaptized infants go, and how does his solution, whatever it may be, square with God’s justice and mercy (both together, not just one taken separately?
So where does this leave us? How did Limbo get changed? Why did it get changed? There are things that we are told that we just have to have faith in, so why is faith no longer used when it comes to Limbo?
Thanks for all of your help.
Terri
____________________
Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
St. Francis of Assisi
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12th, 2007 02:09 am |
|
Terri, the idea of limbo started and ended as a theological opinion. (The origin of the idea can be found in certain speculative writings by St. Augustine of Hippo. It is not an apostolic tradition, much less biblical.) It was never a doctrine of the Church, although for some time there was an attempt by a certain school of theology to teach it as if it were. That’s where the misconception comes from, of course. Since the Church’s magisterium recently repudiated limbo as incompatible with dogma in other areas of our doctrine, it is effectively dead as a possible explanation of what happens to unbaptized innocents.
Notice that, writing before the Vatican decision to jettison limbo, apologist Karl Keating gave the correct interpretation at that time: it could be accepted or rejected because it was not a doctrine.
Even if some fundamentalists claim that the definition of doctrine constitutes a change, the problem with “changing doctrine” does not — in fact cannot — exist in the Catholic Church. This is because whatever is defined as doctrine must have been already believed, either explicitly or implicitly, since the beginning of Christianity. By explicitly is meant a doctrine that is in fact accepted but not defined, such as the Trinity, which was not formally defined until the fourth century but was believed from the time of the apostles. By implicitly is meant a doctrine that can be securely derived from existing defined doctrine, such as the fifth century definition of Mary as the mother of God, which is deduced from what we know about the hypostatic union, which in turn treats of the union of two natures in one person, the Son of God.
If the pope or the bishops in council were ever to attempt to define a doctrine without reference to what is already believed, it would be by its very nature null and void.
David
|
|
|
Vanessa
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Vanessa | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic, atheist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20th, 2007 09:20 am |
|
I just wanted to thank Flowerchild for asking this question and David for his reply.
It is issues such as this, which have caused me personally much agonising before my return to the Church.
And so I discover that something that I was taught 40 years ago is not an issue at all, I can put it to one side and continue in belief of the infinate goodness of God.
Thank you,
Vanessa
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20th, 2007 11:06 am |
|
Flowerchild wrote: How did Limbo get changed?
It didn't. Children's Limbo has never been part of the doctrine of the Church. It was commonly taught, but was never part of the official Magisterium. See this article from the 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Note the appearance of words like "opinion".
St. Augustine, who originally discussed Original Sin, came up with the concept of a state of existance "on the border" of heaven for unbaptized infants to solve a problem. If the unbaptized cannot enter heaven (which he believed) because of Original Sin, what happens to infants who have committed no personal sin? Certainly a merciful God would not condemn them to hell. He believed there must be another state for the unbaptized who have not sinned. That came to be known as "Limbo". St. Thomas Aquinas believed it was a place of natural happiness. Other great theologians rejected the idea completely. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Robert Bellarmine considered it "an embarrassment". However, the ideas of St. Thomas began being commonly taught.
Pope Benedict has called for the first time for a doctrinal examination of just what happens to unbaptized infants. That examination is currently underway.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on Limbo which includes the following:
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 (c) 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.
So you may choose to believe in Limbo or not, according to your own study and beliefs. If the Church decides to issue a doctrinal determination, then we will be bound to believe it. However, it is not currently part of Church teaching and is not mentioned in the Catechism.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 12:00 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
