Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Please explain to me how limbo can suddenly no longer exist???

38 replies

fartmeistergeneral · 17/10/2006 17:35

Firstly, am not a catholic and not particularly religious, although constantly curious.

Read a week or so ago that the Pope's advisors were telling him to scrap limbo! Said it was too upsetting for those who had stillborn babies or children who died very young.

Now, that must be the worst imaginable thing ever, to lose a child. HOWEVER, how can the Pope suddenly say 'oh, see that limbo, it's existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, actually, we don't believe in it any more, you children will automatically go to heaven'

So, if you had a stillborn baby 5 years ago and had accepted that it was in limbo, are you now to change you belief completely that it has actually been in heaven all this time??

How can you change such huge beliefs? Are they not derived from the bible? Can 'man' just change things??

Interested to hear from catholics or non catholics.

OP posts:

harrisey · 17/10/2006 21:02

Been trying to think how to answer this. I'm not a catholic either but I am a CHristian, and I think you raise some really important pastoral issues here. How do you talk to a mother who has lost a child at all? Let alone try to explain how such a beleif has changed.

Now as far as I know, limbo is a traditional beleif of the Catholic Church but I am pretty sure that it is not a biblical beleif - I certainly know of no evidence in the Bible for its existence. But it is very hard to tease out, after all this time, the difference between biblical doctrine and old traditions. I think the Catholic theologians have decided it is not biblical either, so that is why they are advising it is scrapped.

We are all unable to understand what happens when we die, but we are all human and have humanities limitations and lack of understanding. We just dont know - we have to rely on faith to guide our thoughts. One day, I believe, we will know and then it will all make sense to us, but that wont be until we die ourselves. In the Bible it says (in First Corinthians chapter 13 verses 12 and 13) 'now I know in part, but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love."
I love the acknowledgement that I cant know it all now, but that one day I will. And that love is triumphant. I think the decision of the Catholic Church to ditch limbo is essentially a loving decision, which shows more of the love of God for us.

Dont know if that helps at all (I am a bit higgeldy-piggeldy in my thinking) but hope it does.

nearlythree · 17/10/2006 21:06

Am not a Catholic, but as I understand it 'limbo' was never really part of church doctrine and certainly has not been recognised for a very long time. However, belief in it has persisted and I believe the Pope is being asked to make a statement to say that it has not been a doctrine of the church for ages, if ever.

Purgatory has gone as a doctrine too. (Have you seen that great Father Ted episode with the bishop talking to Fr.Dougal about it?) Neither derived from the Bible but were 'man-made' to start with.

Ellbell · 17/10/2006 22:32

I was about to start my post with 'I'm not a Catholic, but...', but realised that every other post on this thread starts like that too. Where have all the Catholics gone?

Anyway, my knowledge of theology stops shortly after 1300 (actually, my knowledge of most stuff stops about then ) but I can tell you that belief in Limbo is definitely not based on the Bible, although I guess that indirectly it is derived from the notion that salvation is only possible through Christ (and thus not possible to those who are not baptised). In medieval thought there were two Limbos, the limbus patrum which is where the souls of the 'good guys' of the OT went between the death of their bodies and the death of Christ. Limbo acted as a sort of 'waiting room' where they hung about until the Crucifixion and from which they were 'liberated' by Christ when he 'descended into Hell' (as the Creed tells us) after his death. The other limbo, the limbus puerorum, is the one that the Church is now abolishing. This was where the souls of unbaptised children were thought to go. It was not a place of punishment, since they hadn't committed any sins. But it was in Hell rather than Heaven, as they still carried (accordinyg to this belief) the stain of Original Sin, which hadn't been washed away by baptism. I think that nearly3 is right that, because there is no biblical basis for the belief in Limbo, the Church can just 'abolish' it. The Church has always 'created' and 'abolished' beliefs - as with Purgatory, which didn't become an official part of Church doctrine till about the 1180s (??), much later than Hell and Heaven.

But as I say, I have no idea how this doctrine is viewed by modern Catholics. Sorry.

nearlythree · 17/10/2006 22:55

It's just a weird way of trying to work out the logic of it, isn't it? You can only be saved by being baptised, soem babies die before they can be baptised, God wouldn't send them to hell so they must go somehwere - hence limbo. In some circles things haven't really changed very much. Only a year or so ago I had a totally mad conversation with some Evangelicals who were trying to work out what age God would have as a cut-off point - i.e. if a child hadn't converted by six, or ten, or whatever, they were off to hell. Totally barking, not to mention claiming to know the mind of whatever God it is they believe in (bears no relation to the God I know and love, let me tell you.)

Tommy · 17/10/2006 23:00

I am a Catholic and I hope I can explain this well enough!

Actually Ellbell has explained it very well and I would say that Contemporary Catholicism views this doctrine as a "theory" rather than an absolute truth. Personally I don;t know anyone who believes in Limbo and certainly my parish priest assured me that my miscarried baby was in Heaven and I had no reason to ever doubt that.

I guess what the Vatican has done recently is really just to formalise what was the general belif anyway. It's not like we've all suddenly changed our view because the Vatican told us to!

CountessDracula · 17/10/2006 23:03

when I saw this on the news I just thought

typical, religious types interpreting things in ways most convenient to them at the time

tis always the way
that's why I don't believe

Tommy · 17/10/2006 23:04

absolutely barking nearly3! This is the problem when we ared elaing with God - we can only put our human experience and thinking onto what we imagine God to be like!

There is also the "intention" part of the theory i.e. if you intended to have your baby baptised then that would be different - one example we used to discuss was "What happned if the baby died on the way to the church where it was ging to be baptised? Would that make a difference?"

All nonsense of course as that by no means takes into account God's infinite mercy

nearlythree · 17/10/2006 23:09

Who on earth could believe in a God who did not show mercy to children? Very scarey.

Tommy · 17/10/2006 23:12

exactly

nearlythree · 17/10/2006 23:14

Sorry to hear about your mc, Tommy. Of course God has your little one safe (now that is in the Bible!)

Tommy · 17/10/2006 23:15

I knew that immediately nearlythree

Tommy · 17/10/2006 23:16

thank you, btw

flibbertyjibbet · 17/10/2006 23:28

It is ideas like limbo that had me decide that I'm a lapsed Catholic.... I have thought for some time that a god who said 'sorry you haven't been baptised, tiny baby, you can't come in' wasn't one I wanted to believe in. I remember being taught at a very early and impressionable age about limbo. The missionaries used it as a way to get people to convert from other faiths to Catholicism, by telling them that unless they had a baptism they would float about in limbo for ever and ever. So perhaps limbo wasn't aimed at little babies at all which would mean that the pope just clarifying a point and not changing doctrine?

MaryBS · 18/10/2006 08:46

I was taught the existence of limbo and purgatory as a child. I also remember my mother being extremely annoyed at me because I left the room during one of the Pope's speeches (it was either Christmas or Easter, can't remember which!) and hence missed out on an indulgence.

I am now a member of the C of E (officially, since Easter), and funnily enough, all the things like that I found I didn't believe as a Catholic, I find aren't a matter of faith in the C of E. Of course, as a Catholic, I 'wouldn't have been allowed' to know that...

nearlythree · 18/10/2006 09:20

flibbertygibbet, does that mean yuo no longer believe in God, or just the Catholic church, if it's okay to ask?

flibbertyjibbet · 18/10/2006 13:34

Nearly three, I'll give that some thought and get back to you later!! I started to type a reply and found myself all in a lather as I've never actually pondered that one before!

Twinkie1 · 18/10/2006 13:38

Went to church last week and one of our lessons was about this - was late at night so excuse me if I seem a bit muddled about it but they sort of said that these kids would have been baptised if they had survived and the want of their parents for them to be baptised is enough for them to enter into heaven.

Thought it was all crap basically - any little thing should be allowed in if they haven't sinned and so these babies should automatically get into heaven.

Ellbell · 18/10/2006 13:53

Aha, Twinkie, but then you get into the problem that flibbertygibbet raised about people of other faiths (or none) who have never been exposed to Christianity, but who have lived wholly good lives. Is it just for them to be damned for their lack of knowledge of Christ, even though they are not guilty of any sins? Morally, surely their position is analogous to that of an unbaptised child - their only sin is Original Sin. But (if I've understood it correctly) they should be damned, since they are not Christians.

Dante raises this question very interestingly, but I will avoid boring you all to death on the subject . I am obsessed, I know !

[BTW, this is one of the reasons why I have big problems with any notion of life-after-death and of Divine Judgement...]

flibbertyjibbet · 18/10/2006 14:10

aaargh I had forgotten all about 'original sin' which of course the catholic faith teaches us that we are all born with so little babies are sinners and thus barred from heaven if they haven't been baptised..... oh yes I am well and truly lapsed.
I am still not sure if I believe in a particluar God, I want my boys to grow up with a good christian outlook (ie, tolerant, forgiving) rather than being religious. i think its organised religion that I don't really believe in. Do sometimes miss all that hymn singing though.

texasrose · 18/10/2006 17:14

Hello, I've just read all this. I'm a christian too with lots of RC friends/influences.

And yes, I do believe in God as the only fair and loving Judge, and I'm glad that it's going to be Him who judges me. The business of who gets into heaven is incredibly tricky to try and work out because He alone knows our hearts and our true intentions - so I am happy to leave it to Him.

I might not put this very well, but one thing to think about is that we are human beings, living in time and space and therefore limited to time and space. God is outside of time and I believe He can see through to our true selves, he sees beyond the limitations of our physical or mental development - which is why, yes although we are tainted by sin even from babyhood, he sees the essence of who we are (our soul, which I believe goes beyond time/development and llasts into eternity) and judges us on that. Which is why I believe that people with mental health problems will be welcome in heaven even if they were not able to consciously 'decide to follow CHrist'.

Personally i find it really hard to believe that anyone would not be welcome in heaven but I've accepted for the moment that there are aspects oof christian doctrine that I might not like but have to acknowledge are there.

It's interesting, eh? Are you a mediaevalist, Elbell?

texasrose · 18/10/2006 17:38

Just want to add - I also don't believe that baptism confers salvation on someone - so the issue of 'unbaptised babies' is irrelevant IMO. In the Bible baptism is an outward sign of inner faith rather than something that in and of itself brings faith.

Just been making dinner think ing that so I thought I'd post it!

nearlythree · 18/10/2006 21:41

Sorry for throwing you a bit there, Flibbertygibbet! I am with you in that I no longer believe in organised religion, certainly not the mammoth churches like Catholicism and Anglicanism which are more self-serving than God-serving.

Ellbell, who could be exempt from getting in was a part of that mad conversation I mentioned earlier. Amazonian tribesmen? People in countries where Christianity was banned? I think what staggered me the most was that anyone would presume to call who God saw as worthy. FWIW the Christians I used to study with all believed that you didn't need to be a Christian to be saved. Me, I'm a universalist. In the period you specialise in I'd have been burned at the stake.

I don't believe in 'original sin', or in judgement. I stopped believing in the 'carrot and stick' way of faith some time ago. I'm still not sure exactly what I do believe, but I know that God is the source of life and love.

Ellbell · 18/10/2006 22:50

Yes, texasrose, I am a medievalist.

FWIW, nearly3, Dante puts virtuous non-believers in Limbo. But later he says something closer to what you say, insofar as he says that God's will is unknowable by mere human beings, and that someone who lives a good life but has never known Christ (someone who lives in those parts of the world unknown to medieval Europeans) will be closer to God when it comes to the Last Judgement than many so-called Christians, who have Christ's name always on their lips but not in their hearts. A fairly unconventional view for his time, though.

expatinscotland · 18/10/2006 22:53

B/c it never existed in the first place.

harrisey · 18/10/2006 23:41

You cant quote Dante on this. Yes, he had a lot of ideas about it, bu tin the end it was a work of literature, not scripture.

Flip

1 2