Limbo, Limbo!

[ST88]

Pope Benedict XVI has stated previously that the concept of Limbo is incorrect. While not official Church doctrine, Limbo has managed to assuage the fears of many adherents that innocent children who are not baptised are consigned to Hell (or worthy pagans). For example: the souls of aborted fetuses. If baptism is required to be Saved, then the unbaptised -- even those who are unbaptised through no fault of their own -- will not be Saved, i.e., they will go to Hell. Purgatory is a similar concept, but lacks the self-purification element.

Sources:
Wikipedia entry
Limbo, an Afterlife Tradition, May Be Doomed by the Vatican

1. Is there any scriptural evidence for Limbo, as opposed to Purgatory?

2. Does the idea give undue comfort to people who would otherwise be in horror that Catholic theology allows for the possibility that innocent victims are in Hell?

3. What would be the ramifications of the Catholic church specifically stating that Limbo was not a valid concept?


ed: Roman numerals

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Limbo is the equivalent of hell? This is not how I understand it.

Taken from the dictionary:
Our use of the word limbo to refer to states of oblivion, confinement, or transition is derived from the theological sense of Limbo as a place where souls remain that cannot enter heaven, for example, unbaptized infants. Limbo in Roman Catholic theology is located on the border of Hell, which explains the name chosen for it. The Latin word limbus, having meanings such as “an ornamental border to a fringe” and “a band or girdle,” was chosen by Christian theologians of the Middle Ages to denote this border region. English borrowed the word limbus directly, but the form that caught on in English, limbo, first recorded in a work composed around 1378, is from the ablative form of limbus, the form that would be used in expressions such as in limb, “in Limbo.”

From what I understand, it is a sort of middle ground between the realms of Heaven and Hell.

Personally, any notion of an all loving God sending mere babies to hell is absolutely rediculous.

1Ti 1:13
In the past I cursed him, persecuted him, and acted arrogantly toward him. However, I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in my unbelief.

Joh 9:39-41
Then Jesus said, "I have come into this world to judge: Blind people will be given sight, and those who can see will become blind." Some Pharisees who were with Jesus heard this. So they asked him, "Do you think we're blind?" Jesus told them, "If you were blind, you wouldn't be sinners. But now you say, 'We see,' so you continue to be sinners.

Act 17:30
God overlooked the times when people didn't know any better.

The Bible teaches that the ignorant will be forgiven/pardoned (or at least judged less severely).



However, I think I might have found some vague scriptural relevance for limbo:

Luk 12:43-48
That servant will be blessed if his master finds him doing this job when he comes. I can guarantee this truth: He will put that servant in charge of all his property. On the other hand, that servant may think that his master is taking a long time to come home. The servant may begin to beat the other servants and to eat, drink, and get drunk. His master will return at an unexpected time. Then his master will punish him severely and assign him a place with unfaithful people."The servant who knew what his master wanted but didn't get ready to do it will receive a hard beating. But the servant who didn't know what his master wanted and did things for which he deserved punishment will receive a light beating. A lot will be expected from everyone who has been given a lot. More will be demanded from everyone who has been entrusted with a lot.


I don't know, think it works?

[1John2_26]

Benedict is awesome. He seems to value the Bible.

He is addressing many Biblical truths. Maybe, finally, God is speaking to a Pope. It sure seems so.

[ST88]

Limbo is the equivalent of hell? This is not how I understand it.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I did not mean to state the Limbo was the equivalent of Hell. What I meant was that removing the concept of Limbo from Catholicism means that those souls who would have been in Limbo could actually be anywhere.

Personally, any notion of an all loving God sending mere babies to hell is absolutely rediculous.

Why is that? The OT God regularly allows curses to be visited upon the offspring of the offenders. Innocents are punished.

The Bible teaches that the ignorant will be forgiven/pardoned (or at least judged less severely).

The New Testament says that, sure. It also says the opposite

1 Corinthians 16:22 (NAS)
If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him.

This would suggest that an active love is required to have a curse not be placed upon "him". Indifference -- via either ignorance or disinterest -- would be equivalent to evil.

Matthew 16:37-38 (NAS)
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

The "with a sword" speech. Presumably, he is speaking about believers and those who actively deny Him, as previous lines suggest. But it's a curious turn of phrase, is it not?

However, I think I might have found some vague scriptural relevance for limbo:

Luk 12:43-48
That servant will be blessed if his master finds him doing this job when he comes. I can guarantee this truth: He will put that servant in charge of all his property. On the other hand, that servant may think that his master is taking a long time to come home. The servant may begin to beat the other servants and to eat, drink, and get drunk. His master will return at an unexpected time. Then his master will punish him severely and assign him a place with unfaithful people."The servant who knew what his master wanted but didn't get ready to do it will receive a hard beating. But the servant who didn't know what his master wanted and did things for which he deserved punishment will receive a light beating. A lot will be expected from everyone who has been given a lot. More will be demanded from everyone who has been entrusted with a lot.

Hmmmm... Very interesting. Personally, I think this refers exclusively to the Second Coming, but it does seem to set guidelines for how God would behave on a daily basis, also. Those ignorant of the Gospel would be treated differently despite having committed the same crimes? It's partial justification for different levels of Hell, surely.

[Tilia]

quote="ST88"

1. Is there any scriptural evidence for Limbo, as opposed to Purgatory?

No, and there is no need for such a doctrine. (There is no real evidence for purgatory, either.) The doctrine of Limbus infantum was made necessary by other false Roman teachings.

2. Does the idea give undue comfort to people who would otherwise be in horror that Catholic theology allows for the possibility that innocent victims are in Hell?

Yes. However, no one should take any comfort from mere water baptism, which has no effect at all, for infants or others. Peter declared, "Repent and be baptised." (Acts 2:38)

3. What would be the ramifications of the Catholic church specifically stating that Limbo was not a valid concept?

Very little, today. In the middle ages, when everyone over a few weeks or days old was baptised in water, except for Muslim infidels who were beyond the pale, the concept of limbo was no doubt useful to mollify the parents of the still-born and of other early mortalities, without permitting that such infants could be saved, and that without water baptism, too. This teaching preserved social calm without undermining the power of the medieval church to maintain social control.

Today, the medieval church no longer exerts social control in the way that it did. The improved education of many, the realisation that many millions have lived and died without hearing the gospel (and still do so), and the increasingly common Protestant view that Christ preaches to the dead (from 1 Peter 3:19) have made less acceptable the idea of a semi-hell for so very many souls. The Roman Church's recent change of mind about limbo was only to be expected.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Why is that? The OT God regularly allows curses to be visited upon the offspring of the offenders. Innocents are punished.

But sent to hell? Such a concept had yet to be revealed.

Forgiveness through Jesus' was not established yet. However, any past ignorance was overlooked, as Acts 17:30 directly states.

You are using old law/custom as an example- a fallicious way to make a point on New Testament doctrine, being that Jesus greatly altered/expanded upon old teachings.

This would suggest that an active love is required to have a curse not be placed upon "him". Indifference -- via either ignorance or disinterest -- would be equivalent to evil.

It is essential to note that this statement was given to the Corinthians, a group who had actually heard the good news.

Rom 10:13
So then, "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." But how can people call on him if they have not believed in him? How can they believe in him if they have not heard his message? How can they hear if no one tells the Good News?

Remember, the Bible only suggests how the reader is to conduct his life, and how he or she must help others to do the same. Aside from a few instances, it never lets on how others will be judged. What difference would it make, anyway? One need not worry about anyone but himself and the people he has influence over.

The Bible never condemns the naive to hell.

The "with a sword" speech. Presumably, he is speaking about believers and those who actively deny Him, as previous lines suggest. But it's a curious turn of phrase, is it not?

Believers who actively deny him? "How can they call on him if they have not heard his message?"

Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this passage.

[trencacloscas]

Limbo has managed to assuage the fears of many adherents that innocent children who are not baptised are consigned to Hell

Purgatory and limbo are just theologic gimmicks made up by the Catholic Church to cover up some of the many contradictions of the Bible. Everything is fake, of course.

The interesting thing is that Limbo was traditionally a place even more terrifying than Hell for some, because it is in the middle of nowhere, like the situation of prisoners who have no trial or sentence. It is a monstrosity, but consistent with the extreme sadism of the Christian doctrine. Certainly, Limbo is not in Hell, but, if you want to credit the medieval imaginery, it is in the surroundings. Check the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri: he places Limbo past the Gates Of Hell, so... a part of Hell, in the end.

Oh, Virgil and Dante notice that people are very sad there. Though they are all innocent!!!!

[ST88]

Why is that? The OT God regularly allows curses to be visited upon the offspring of the offenders. Innocents are punished.

But sent to hell? Such a concept had yet to be revealed.

So Sheol is a myth? ("The future home of the wicked")

Forgiveness through Jesus' was not established yet. However, any past ignorance was overlooked, as Acts 17:30 directly states.

Doesn't Acts 17:30 deal with those good people of Athens who were worshipping an "unknown God". What of those who were without worship of any kind? Is there a provision for poetic justice?

You are using old law/custom as an example- a fallicious way to make a point on New Testament doctrine, being that Jesus greatly altered/expanded upon old teachings.

Absolutely, but he didn't wipe them away, he just said that there were more important things than rituals. The OT God and the NT God are the same entity, as we are led to believe. Do you mean to say that the followers of the OT God got it completely wrong, or is it that the NT God played Twister, putting his elbow on the green spot at the moment of Christ?

This would suggest that an active love is required to have a curse not be placed upon "him". Indifference -- via either ignorance or disinterest -- would be equivalent to evil.

It is essential to note that this statement was given to the Corinthians, a group who had actually heard the good news.

And yet it can be applied to just about anyone.

The "with a sword" speech. Presumably, he is speaking about believers and those who actively deny Him, as previous lines suggest. But it's a curious turn of phrase, is it not?

Believers who actively deny him? "How can they call on him if they have not heard his message?"

Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this passage.

Does it only apply only to unbelievers, or does it include non-believers as well? The distinction is made between those who have heard the News and take a pass on it, and those who have not heard the news and don't know enough to pick up their own crosses. It's a curious turn of phrase because it denies both.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

So Sheol is a myth? ("The future home of the wicked")

Sheol is the equivalent of the Greek concept, Hades, or simply the home of the dead. Litterally, a person who is "Sheol" is merely dead and buried, regarless of their moral standing.

I am pretty sure that is the correct interpretation.

Doesn't Acts 17:30 deal with those good people of Athens who were worshipping an "unknown God". What of those who were without worship of any kind? Is there a provision for poetic justice?

Ignorance is ignorance. The people of Athens had never heard the message, and were pardoned. So if that African tribe that worships nothing has never heard the message, why wouldn't they be pardoned as well?

There is no difference between idol worship and an absense of worship all together. Both are inaccurate (yet excusable by ignorance) as far as the Biblical perspective is concerned.

Absolutely, but he didn't wipe them away, he just said that there were more important things than rituals.

"You have died to the laws in Moses' teachings". Sure, he never wiped out the ten commandments or anything, but most petty rituals were abolished. Things such as the death penalty, circumcision, various customs, ect.

Here is the litteral greek/hebrew explanation of Romans 7:4:
Wherefore, my brethren - This is a parallel case. You were once under the law of Moses, and were bound by its injunctions; but now ye are become dead to that law - a modest, inoffensive mode of speech, for, The law, which was once your husband, is dead; God has determined that it shall be no longer in force; so that now, as a woman whose husband is dead is freed from the law of that husband, or from her conjugal vow, and may legally be married to another, so God, who gave the law under which ye have hitherto lived, designed that it should be in force only till the advent of the Messiah; that advent has taken place, the law has consequently ceased, and now ye are called to take on you the yoke of the Gospel, and lay down the yoke of the law; and it is the design of God that you should do so.

The OT God and the NT God are the same entity, as we are led to believe. Do you mean to say that the followers of the OT God got it completely wrong, or is it that the NT God played Twister, putting his elbow on the green spot at the moment of Christ?

Laws change under different conditions (as it is in worldly governments such as our own). The comming of the Messiah changed everything. Refer to the scholar's explanation above.

And yet it can be applied to just about anyone.

Even in Paul's specific context?

A person who has never even heard so much as Jesus' name can hardly express "active love" in him.