Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Pope Benedict Beatifies Limbo
Nirvana
aka BUBBA ` ` South Carolina, USA Veteran
The idea of limbo addresses the belief that unbaptized babies could not go to heaven because their original sin had not been wiped away, but nor should they go to purgatory or hell. Now Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.
Catholics have been taught for centuries that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven
Some now claim that the Church "has no formal doctrine" on Limbo. That is, however, mere rhetoric, as it was officially taught by its clergy (officials) for centuries.
"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," says the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. "Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response to TIME magazine.
Pope Benedict approved the report of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing" pastoral needs — especially the many abortions and the infants born to "non-believers" who die without being baptized.
All this seems very iffy and crazy to me, born Roman Catholic and schooled as such in parochial schools. All this being done for "pastoral reasons" notwithstanding, it shows fundamental flaws in the way Roman Catholic officialdom does business and thinks. I need not go into these issues on a Buddhist forum, but I write what I write to get out the salient points on the matter.
Catholics have been taught for centuries that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven
Some now claim that the Church "has no formal doctrine" on Limbo. That is, however, mere rhetoric, as it was officially taught by its clergy (officials) for centuries.
"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," says the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. "Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response to TIME magazine.
Pope Benedict approved the report of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing" pastoral needs — especially the many abortions and the infants born to "non-believers" who die without being baptized.
________________________
All this seems very iffy and crazy to me, born Roman Catholic and schooled as such in parochial schools. All this being done for "pastoral reasons" notwithstanding, it shows fundamental flaws in the way Roman Catholic officialdom does business and thinks. I need not go into these issues on a Buddhist forum, but I write what I write to get out the salient points on the matter.
0
Comments
"It used to be a sin to eat meat on Fridays but now it's not. Did all the guys in hell guilty of eating meat on Friday suddenly get pulled out of hell. Did they pull them off the meat wrap or something there?"
In a theology where baptism was essential for salvation and the only way envisaged for 'wiping out the stain of Original Sin', and in a world where peri-natal mortality was the norm, the question was, rightly, asked about the fate of dead babies. The notion of Limbo was a far more compassionate attempt to address the problem than the absolutist approach of the Protestant Reformers who condemned such infants to eternal damnation. This was so widespread an idea in the Protestant world that instruments were developed to administer baptism in utero - pretty intrusive they were, too.
In our post-scientific world, such notions are somewhat questionable. Salvation itself, meaning admission to the "Kingdom of Heaven", is no longer a driving ambition. The very idea of 'spaces' called Heaven, Hell, Purgatory or Limbo ceased to be tenable after the development of the telescope and the microscope. No such 'spaces' can be shown to exist in the space-time continuum or by quantum mechanics. It would be far more unacceptable for the Vatican to deny scientific evidence.
The theology of 'Original Sin' will, inevitably, have to be revisited because of this statement as Richard McBrien points out. Some of us hope that this will lead to a wholesale re-assessment of the notion of 'sin' itself. This would lead, as night follows day, to a reflection on what is actually meant by 'redemption' and 'reconciliation'. It is my belief that Buddhist thought has a real contribution to make to this re-evaluation, particularly the Dharma Seals.
Nevertheless, this is a family matter within the faith family that is the Roman Church and we who stand outside its embrace need to offer our assistance with respect and humility rather than through clinging or aversion, pushing or pulling away. We have our own irrational beliefs and it suits us ill to point out those in other systems.
As i read His Holiness's statement, it arises from a compassionate understanding of the grief, with its denial and bargaining, that accompanies the death of an infant.
I often have to read what you write several times to get a fuller understanding of all the implications and ramifications of what you have to say. I believe that you are a man of intense faith and have a heart of gold. Therefore you must always take the higher road. However, Institutions, not being authentic individuals (such as you are), cannot be genuine and sincere and cannot take the higher road. They muck through the mud and print bogus bills which they make their members spend. Their doctrines, however they may change, are not always so pure as they would have the faithful believe...
Like it or not, Christians are pretty much STUCK WITH the Idea of Original Sin. Unless you are BORN AGAIN it's for damn sure you're going to Hell, they say.
It will take a great saint with a new and great revelation to change that Idea.
And as for this modernizing, I guess it's good for the INSTITUTION, but it's OVERSTATING for the fully initiated. As I said in another thread, whether the Roman Church says Limbo never existed or existed until 2007 AD, it really does matter. They are undermining their credibility and strength.
In that post I said that a BIG difference between the Eastern Church and the Western Church is the pesky Western OBSESSION with explaining everything. That can become explaining everything away.
Take the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. The (Western) Roman Catholic Church teaches that Bread and Wine are transformed materially into the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, although their appearances remain the same as before the Eucharistic Consecration. Now, to the Eastern Churches, this is a wholly unnecessary doctrine which awkwardly usurps the mystery with a narrow explanation.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation misses the mark entirely for the mystical believer, for whom the PURPOSE of ALL BREAD is to become the Body of Christ.
Sorry, Pilgrim, this modernization idea is a real problem. It is in the very nature of the structure of the Church to be at least a bit Medieval. Whether Limbo is a mellow and happy part of hell or a region of Heaven, it's all in the mystic imagination anyway. No credible Church theologian ever argued for the real "physical" nature of the Heavenly Spaces, at least. Perhaps hellfire had to be real, though.
Christ may have taught the forgiveness of sin, but the Church never has taught that in the way he did. It's great that the Roman Church is tending to the sheep who have died or who have lost loved ones. Perhaps one day the Roman Church will be more pastoral to victims of Clergy sexual abuse and to people who differ from some given norm.
Thanks for the exchange of views, dear Soul!
Nirvana
You raise a good many questions which take us far beyond the initial question of Limbo, and I concede that, were we to debate the merits of Catholic doctrine, all such is grist to the debating mill. We would also have to address your statement about the route to salvation which does not, in my opinion, fully reflect the diversity of two millennia of Christian thought, reducing it to a local and recent reading of Scripture.
I continue to believe that the good that comes from an institution, be it the Catholic Church or a nation bent of freedom, is never totally trumped by the foul deeds done by its individual members or, even, covered up by its leaders. I also believe in innate goodness but then I am just an ageing hippy.
Your meaning and allusion to something I said entirely escapes me. Could you fill me in more? I won't be able to get back online for a few days, so no rush.
Best regards,
Jesse
Dear Jesse,
The words with which I take issue are: Whilst it is quite true that you hear this rhetoric in many Christian churches, it is not true for all groups. It has also not been the case across the centuries of Christian belief.
Briefly, because this is, after all, a Buddhist site and not an historical appreciation of Christology, there have been any number of different 'doctrines' of salvation and the way to it. I am sure that you know of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination which rests on Scripture and suggests that individuals are chosen from either before or after the Fall (a good theological argument there, I can tell you). Each person is saved or damned according to this 'electiuon' and have no say in it.
In Catholic doctrine, baptism is necessary for salvation but the concept of being 'born again' as preached by 'fundamentalists' and 'charismatics' is considered heterodox if not actually heretical.
In some parts of the Christian family, the notion is that one is saved by some form of personal 'encounter' with a Risen Jesus, whilst still others deny this as either necessary or useful.
Basically, as in Buddhism, you take your pick of what fits for you. Have you had some sort of powerful and, apparently, supernatural experience? Then join a group that takes that sort of thing seriously. If you haven't but still find the Jesus message compelling, find the group that fits you as well as possible. Just so long as it leads to a more compassionate life of peace and justice, it fits the basic Jesus message.
Does that answer your question? Being 'born again' is a local (geographically) and recent (20th Century) revival of old, 'pagan' enthusiasm. It will pass as they have done but I fear that a lot of people will be hurt and even killed before we come back to sane rationality.
Palzang
You spoil us with your example of courtesy and respect, Palzang-la.
Palzang
I would rather you accord respect to those who honestly hold a different view - both theirs and yours (and mine) are no more than personal opinions. The strength of your language suggests that your view may be distorted by personal issues, with which I can have no quarrel. Perhaps you do not understand how offensive some of your observations are to those who hold to Catholic Christian traditions.
Thanks, dear Pilgrim, for fleshing that out so well. Let me say first, up front, and as a native Roman Catholic, I REALLY DO WANT the Church to GET IT RIGHT, and am scandalized when they change the cosmology around in an instant, as it were. These changes bother me, because they suggest that the Faith is all built on a big fiction, which I know is not the case. Mystically All People are One Body to a Christian, and it is the purpose of All Bread to become the Body of Christ. Christ is real because love is real, and love exists because God is love. As a vedantist, I believe All Religions to be grounded in the truth. God is IN all things.
However, although Christ never went around calling people sinners (except perhaps by implication those in authority), the early Church assumed that his death on the Cross was an Atonement for the sins of all (or many). You find this again and again in the New Testament in many ways, especially in Hebrews. Although not stated explicitly in the Creeds, Jesus' death is seen as having an overriding purpose. That would be the At-One-Ment.
Now whether the sins that people have are congenital or are willful trangressions —or anything in between— what Jesus did and represents is the main thing a Christian has to turn to in faith. Every other thing is extra. I don't mean to be dogmatic here. I am simply trying to state how I believe the facts lie.
I quite agree what you have said about the revival of old "pagan" enthusiasm, and have already addressed this "born again" fallacy in two threads under Jesus and Buddha, namely: Michael Molinos & other Mystics/Quietists and "Born again" & "born from above" BLOWN ALL OUT OF PROPORTION by "Evangelicals."
But, to sum up for now, Christians are pretty much STUCK WITH the Idea of Original Sin, and it's just plain ridiculous what Professor Richard McBrien of Notre Dame says: "If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace."
Everyone is born in the state of grace with a silver spoon in his mouth, I suppose.
has this ever stopped them from doing so????
Most of us here believe in certain 'human rights' but I see no one adducing scientific evidence for their existence. Show me that they do not exist and I shall stop believing in them but I do not think they are anything more, today, than a set of faith statements.
You have mentioned the Eastern Church. Perhaps you are aware of a distinction they make between Theologomena and Dogma. That is what Pope Benedict is saying. "Limbo" never has been a Dogma. It was part of the the Theologomena of the Roman Church. There is indeed a very clear distinction, but that distincion was blurred in relatively recent more-or-less modern times when one school of theology was made dominant over the others (Thomism). But it was St. Thomas Aquinas himself who said that what he had written was all straw compared with what he had come to KNOW through spiritual experience. So I like to think that it was in abandoning obligatory Thomism (by the way over 30 years ago, not just the other day) that the Church finally came into agreement with what Thomas actually said.
Have I stepped out on a tenuous limb in what I have said above?
I eagerly look forward to your reply.
Nirvana
One of the major flaws in modern 'religious education' is that students are not given the tools with which to determine what exactly they are looking at. When teaching literary appreciation, we teach some of the rhetorical devices that are used: pathetic fallacy, metaphor, simile, and so on. RE classes rarely address the different degrees of revelation and 'certainty'.
Pilgrim:
I do not consider myself a critic of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of my family remains R.C. However, what does rather disconcert me is the scandal (stumbling block) that these changes suggest, namely that the faith is all based on some sort of fiction --fiction whose details are tailor-made to particular audiences. As I said above cosmologies of the afterlife are mysteries and cannot be written out in exacting detail...
As to the matter of human rights being matters of faith:
It is the human mind that is the final measuring rod in science. It is human diligence in calibrating the instruments and human acumen reporting the results that give us science.
Now if a thorough-going man such as John Rawls undertakes a study objectively quantifying what human fairness is, that is science. There is a point at which philosophy is at the very summit of human achievement.
I shall start a thread but I'm not sure where, Buddhism in the Modern World perhaps.
BTW, Nirvana, in strict accordance with the fact that you can take a person out of the Church but not the Church out of the person, your use of the word "scandal" in that sense (and very useful it is, too) is as Catholic as the Pope LOL!
Hey your idea on Human Rights, the Social Contract, and the Dharma sounds very intriguing.
Ya know, Pilgrim, too bad the Pope (God's Peace Be Upon Him) isn't more like you. I really mean that. The world would be better for it.
Regards,
Nirvana
My godfather attended a meeting of a General Congregation of the Society where Fr. Arrupe brought a furious row between the delegates by simply withdrawing into a corner and sirring in meditation. I was told that the sight of this elderly man, cross-legged onm the floor and facing the wall, brought total silence to the shouting and disagreement.
Palzang