Well, I suppose if they can codify the idea of Limbo in the middle ages it ought to be just as legimate to renounce it now - I mean if neither decision are based on a communication from God then both are just human inventions and therefore equally meaningless right? (but the idea of Limbo does make for some cool settings in games and novels...)

It's so much fun making fun of some of the Catholic Church's weirder ideas.

None of which have any biblical support, mind you.

Why would you defile my Cauldron of Slime in the Paraelemental Plane of Ooze by writing about it? Do these people worship me? Do I grant their priests' spells? I think not.

Two Elder Brown Puddings are headed your way, bub.

And don't even think about skating through a portal to the Elemental Plane of Water to escape -- I've already told Blibdoolpoolp that a very naughty boy might be headed his way, and he'll be on you like a sahaughin on jellyfish.

Is limbo where all the little pagan babies end up?

Yes, and babies who die before baptism, or are stillborn, etc.

Ok, let me spread some enlightment here. It's easy to make fun of what sounds silly to modern ears. The teachings of our Church reach back to Christ's time.

The writings of St. Augustine and many others are quoted widely for their wisdom and holiness until it is something such as this that people wish to make fun of. (not that I am blaming you, I can certainly see how it seems silly)

Although our Dogma never changes our doctrines sometimes do with years and years of reflection and prayer by those who dedicate their lives to God and such things.

How people, such as St. Augustine, described things in the 1100's is QUITE different than how we describe things today. I think that is what Pope John Paul was getting at.

The Church does modernize those things they can within the scope of our faith, and in language more agreeable with the times, but the core of our faith never changes. (which is really what I like about it)

If you wish to be truly enlightened, here is a link that describes how the teaching of limbo came about in our Church:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

And here is a link about Purgatory:

http://www.anawim.pair.com/CATHOLICS/PURGATORY.htm

And just to be clear, neither are "places" but states of grace. There isn't a waiting room...;-) It's all about our souls path to heaven and I suppose we will never truly know the truth until it's too late to tell anyone here, right?

To me it doesn't really matter. There are those who want these answers and trust the ones who give it to them. But we all know what is expected here on this earth, don't we?

I'm all about the effort and I won't worry about my death and the ride that brings me home.

And Jeff,

You might want to check out the Purgatory link. It has all the Biblical support you could ask for.

Sorry Jeff. The Catholic church is not based solely on the bible. We also look at the Christian Traditions of the last 2000 years for insight. Mind you, some of that insight sucks. That whole based in Biblical fact is something that happened after the reformation. Up until then, tradition (in the formal sense) was largely observed.

Yes, and babies who die before baptism,

Ace,
I love you, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is a dogma called baptism by intent. In other words, if you are on the way to a baptism for your child, and he dies in a car crash, the mere intent is enough to include him into the Body Of Christ (tm). Also, you can baptize the baby in the water in the ditch on the side of the road while waiting for the ambulance. In dire straits, water is water is water.

"Baptism of intent" ...oops. aka "Baptism of desire."

Monica,

Sorry, I thought that's what I'd read at some point.

Don't feel bad, everything I know about limbo I learned from an old George Carlin record

Itsa kinda like.... sometimes God he likes to redecorate up in Heaven, you know? Like maybe close up the breezeway and make a rec room or something... go ahead and change the wallpaper and paint the guest room.... itsa still the same house, just look a little different, see.

The Catholic church is not based solely on the bible

And therein lies the problem. Just ask Martin Luther. :)

Knock it off!

Shut up G! Let 'em go on!

Fr. Guido cracked me up.

That's right, it's all practice and patience. Couple of Our Father's and Hail Mary's will get those souls moving along, at least that's what my high school Italian teacher Padre Spoletini said: "Effia you notta Joow o eh Cattoleek, den getta somma summer peejammas. Eets gonna be hot where you a'goin." What a patriot. Of course, I always thought Jews lived for the present, and their afterlife consisted of immortality from being fruitful and multiplying, carrying on through their progeny and such. Maybe the Padre had one of those inside lines and knew the real plan....

By the by, it figures Satan wouldn't have an email address: Pussy, come play in the light.

Some of the knots my Catholic brethren tie themselves into are amusing to watch from afar. That said, when the rapture comes, I'll give up my seat on the God bus for any guy in a robe or collar out of respect. 98% of the Catholic priests/monks are right righteous dudes.

Fortunately for the Catholic Church, it does not believe that the Bible is the actual word of God, unlike Muslims and the Koran and some misguided Christian sects. It believes that the bible was inspired by God, but written by men. That's why its not a fundamentalist faith, because it beleives that the Bible can be and should be interpreted. It believes and specifically teaches that not all of God's mysteries have been revealed, and that they may be learned over time. The church considers itself a learning institution. That's why around 900 AD it started forming the schools that would become the major universities of Europe 200 years later.
Besides its healthy to have a little philosophical flexibility.

Jeff:
"None of which have any biblical support, mind you."

Oh sure they do. They were in those books, you know, Maccabees and the rest.

The ones ol' Marty Luther took out.

Of the Bible. Septuagint. Ring a bell?

The ones ol' Marty Luther took out.

The establishment of the canon is actually a fascinating story.

Don't get me started.

Even Lutherans (liberal Lutherans) might argue about whether James belongs in the canon. But I'm convinced that James is just frequently misunderstood, because he uses some of the same expressions as Paul, but with a different meaning if you interpret them in context.

Wait, I said I wouldn't get started.

How nice. I truly expected to come back to a Catholic/Protestant cat fight.

Brewfan, come on. You gotta know that the Christian faith was around for quite a while before the Bible was put together. Sooo........it was based on what, do ya think?

But if that is the only argument I'm getting..YAY!!!!!

Having found my faith as a Protestant and continue to live it as a Catholic, I have a deep love for both sides of Christianity.

It's scary that there are people who can spell Blibdoolpoolp. Except that she was, well, a she, as I recall. (Googles.) Yes.

Michael:
Wait, I said I wouldn't get started

James is probably my favorite book in the Bible. (Partly because it's so short!) But don't let me get you started.

Actually, if anybody read Dante, you'd know that Limbo was actually part of Hell. And nobody stays in Purgatory. So there's really only 2 destinations in Catholic theology -- being with God (Heaven) or being separated from God (Hell).

Limbo has never been officially part of Catholic doctrine -- it was just posited to explain what happens to the unbaptized who probably would have gone to Heaven if they were baptized. I thought about 10 or so years ago we had a round of this from the Pope. There's lots of Catholic "beliefs" out there that people try to use to explain various things, but quite a few of them aren't part of official teaching. For example, burying a St. Joseph statue upside-down in your front yard to help sell your home... that's certainly not part of the catechism.

This is one of the most refreshing (spiritually speaking) threads I've read here. Thanks to God and Satan for checking in.

I truly wish The Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther could have worked out their differences so that the Reformation--really, a cataclysmic schism that resulted in thousands of deaths--could have been avoided in the manner that it took.

At the risk of several ancestors of mine spinning in their graves, I have a feeling that I will be "crossing the Tiber" within the next 10 years, given the unfortunate direction my denomination seems to be going.

So the Bible is a living document? Mmmm...no thanks, for all the usual reasons.

RWS, in other words, Limbo describes not where these souls actually are but is a sort of fog which veiled the understanding of the mediaeval Church from the souls' actual fate.

meep, it's dangerous to base one's understanding of Catholic dogma from the hallucinations of an Italian poet, especially one not above incorporating his personal revenge fantasies in his work.

Although I'll grant that Dante was a very good poet.

(not getting started on the relationship between the NT canon and development of the Cath / Orth system)

For the record - the above post is not meant as an accusation of meep. I'm certain meep would be first to agree with me.

So the Bible is a living document? Mmmm...no thanks, for all the usual reasons.

Now you can see why there are such big fights every time a new revised translation comes out. Which makes sense when you recall that the finalized version was culled from sources in at least four languages, by guys without spell check.

Its also why the Church worked so hard to control... hmm a better word would be standardize what was taught. It was to keep everyone on the same page, and not go running heretical all over the place. Fat lot of good it did 'em.

A Rabbi told me that some Jewish scholars will read the Christian Bible, because the Old Testament represents a frozen snapshot of their Torah from 2000 years ago.

Iblis: the Rabbi's probably referring to the Greek / Orthodox Bible aka Septuagint. The Vulgate and Peshitta have some third-hand Septuagint influence (based as they were on earlier Latin and Aramaic translations of that) but mostly they were retranslations of the proto-Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is what the Jews use now and, for that matter, what Tyndale, Luther, and King James used.

And yeah, Jewish scholars are interested in the Septuagint. Partly because the Dead Sea Scrolls have vindicated much of its base text, partly because Septuagintal manuscripts copied by non-Christian Jews have also turned up. Also, it was the Bible of the Jewish Diaspora in Alexandria; the philosopher Philo, for instance, used it.

I am glad it was mentioned that Limbo is:
a. Not an official belief/doctrine/dogma/teaching of the Catholic Church, and
b. "Limbo" does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So sayeth Wikipedia: "Official Church teaching remains that the status of these souls (who don't seem to deserve hell, yet cannot follow the divinely-revealed path to heaven) is in limbo – in other words, their fate cannot be determined by any but God."

I'm not going to even enter the "based on the Bible" debate. It's too touchy and I have my own quirky views.

Brewfan, come on. You gotta know that the Christian faith was around for quite a while before the Bible was put together.

Not true. Half the bible was around well before the Christian Faith, the other half was written before the end of the first century. If you believe the book is written by men divinely inspired by God then it really doesn't matter when the canon was created. Every attempt to impose doctrine not found in the bible has failed miserably. What does that tell you?

If only God had inspired some Scriptures *before* the time of Christ! Maybe even some prophecies so that we would have some way of recognizing the Messiah when He came. Then we wouldn't have to derive a bunch of doctrine from sources like Aristotle, and pull a bunch more our of our poopers.

Europe is inherently wrong.

If only God had inspired some Scriptures *before* the time of Christ!

He did.

Maybe even some prophecies so that we would have some way of recognizing the Messiah when He came.

He did.

Then we wouldn't have to derive a bunch of doctrine from sources like Aristotle, and pull a bunch more our of our poopers.

You don't have to.

Europe is inherently wrong.

So are you.

/sarcasm.

I'm afraid my head might explode now from trying to figure out if it's too Aristotalian to say that if Europe really is inherently wrong, then I, who assert that it is, cannot also be inherently wrong.

BF:

The canon of the NT was first set in the late 4th and early 5th Centuries, IIRC. Some relatively unpopular works like Revelation made the cut while relatively popular ones like The Shepherd of Hermes didn't. That's just a fact.

I believe the point is, upon whose authority was the canon of the NT established centuries after the Crucifixion? Regardless of what you might think about the writers of individual books, the fact that these books are the ones you identify as inspired had to come from a non-biblical authority.

VRWC,

I can't say it any better so let me quote Charles Ryrie:

"The Bible is self-authenticating and church councils have only recognized the authority inherent in the books themselves."

But the real issue is giving tradition equal authority in matters of doctrine. This is where you get abominations like 'Limbo', not the scriptures.

"The Bible is self-authenticating and church councils have only recognized

That's a funny way of describing something that happened bythe vote of councils using criteria established by the councils, my friend. (Even accepting Paul into the club was an act of the 1st Jerusalem Council, was it not?)

The NT was established by criteria men decided on. It continues in some corners to be reexamined according to criteria of men. Either there is something extra-human in that process or you are, at best, looking at a fallible collection of what may or may not be the right infallible books.

the real issue is giving tradition equal authority in matters of doctrine.

Consistency with tradition was one of the criteria to which the canddidate books had to conform, IIRC.

I think the counterpoint is that many, many interpretations are possible for something as dense and complex as Scripture. The factionalization even of "Bible based" Christianity attests to this. Conformity to tradition is one way of weeding the interpretations. Another is an authority vested with the power to declare orthodoxy among the plausible interpretations. (1 Tim. 3:15 comes to mind.)

Hopefully you won't take this as an attempt to batter your faith. It isn't. It's just an encouragement to be a little less dismissive of others.

That's a funny way of describing something that happened bythe vote of councils using criteria established by the councils

You missed the point. The NT books were regarded as scripture long before the Council of Carthage and would be considered scripture if there was no attempt to canonize scripture.

Even accepting Paul into the club was an act of the 1st Jerusalem Council, was it not

Nice strawman. This has nothing to do with the canon of scripture unless you want to argue about whether Paul had apostolic authority.

The NT was established by criteria men decided on

I agree.

Either there is something extra-human in that process or you are, at best, looking at a fallible collection of what may or may not be the right infallible books.

Based on the fact the current canon has remained largely unchallenged would lead me to believe there is something 'extra-human' in the process.

Consistency with tradition was one of the criteria to which the canddidate books had to conform, IIRC

For the New Testament the criteria was 1) apostolic authority, 2) the books themselves had to give some evidence of being inspired and authoritative and 3) a majority of the churches represented had to accept the book as scripture.

I think the counterpoint is that many, many interpretations are possible for something as dense and complex as Scripture

I agree. But again, the point we're discussing is making doctrines out of whole cloth and not based on scripture. Specifically, the teaching of Limbo - please point me at a scripture that in anyway supports this.

It's just an encouragement to be a little less dismissive of others.

I'm not dismissive and I'm sorry I came across that way. But I believe strongly there is a lot of false teaching and I can't in good conscience let that pass. When good folks see that somehow God's revelation is treated as a 'living' document by some denominations, much as our liberal friends believe the Constitution is a 'living' document, it makes a mockery of our faith and lends credence to the perception we are nothing but hypocrites.

James says "what good is it for a man to say he has faith without works"?

Not "have faith without works". Just "say" so.

It's like arguing whether a quarter is heads or tails.

I suspect the scriptural arguments for "limbo" come from things like Isaiah 7:16 which talks about a time when a child is too young to choose between good and evil, or II Samuel 12:21-23, David fasted and prayed until the child died, and then stopped, saying ".. I shall go to him but he will not return to me", i.e. the child is safe with God. Or possibly Numbers 14:29, when God set a precedent for punishment of the rebellion against him by making them wander in the desert for 40 years until the wicked generation died, but saying only those older than the age of 20 were under that punishment, i.e. they were innocent.

Not being Catholic, I'm not certain. But that's my guess.

i.e. those younger than 20 were innocent, I meant to say

You missed the point. The NT books were regarded as scripture long before the Council of Carthage

I don't believe I'm missing the point at all. Lots of things not in the NT were treated as scriptural and didn't make the cannonical cut and some that did make the cut were mostly ignored in the early days. Please check the examples I gave you if you don't believe me: The Shepherd of Hermes was far, far more popularly used than Revelation which was mostly limited to the eastern churches. If a popular vote among the rank and file or even the clergy decided such things, the former would be in the NT and the latter would not.

Nice strawman. This has nothing to do with the canon of scripture

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Without the 1st Council of Jerusalem approving Paul, obviously after the Ascention and before the Bible, a huge chunk of the NT would not exist. Some kind of authority must have been vested in that Council and that authority is responsible for lots and lots of Epistles. Likewise, some sort of authority existed in later councils that considered and pronounced a NT canon.

Based on the fact the current canon has remained largely unchallenged would lead me to believe there is something 'extra-human' in the process.

Well, except for that time Martin Luther had to be talked off the ledge about James ... But, yes. This is progress. So something extra-human and outside the Bible itself established the canon. That seems logically necessary: if the canon is infallible, which it must be if the Bible is to be infallible, something infallible other than the Bible must have been operating when the canon was established centuries after Jesus. Not something amazingly persuasive, but something infallible.

For the New Testament the criteria was 1) apostolic authority, 2) the books themselves had to give some evidence of being inspired and authoritative and 3) a majority of the churches represented had to accept the book as scripture.

Timothy was not an Apostle; he was just close to one. And yet some writings by actual Apostles didn't make it. So the field of "Apostolic authority" was widened beyond the Apostles (on whose authority?) and winnowed by other judgments. The books did have to hold up with doctrine (as established by?) and the decision was made by representatives of the various churches (a represetative body for which, I believe, there was a name, yes?).

The first time I know of the present 27 book canon being offered as such was a list from Athanasius in the mid-to late 4th century. The list was formalized at the end of the century at Hippo and Carthage. For the centuries prior to establishing the canon, there was by no means anything like a consensus on what was and was not scriptural. And even after the canon was established, the policing of orthodoxy was less than perfect.

I believe this site was used in a previous discussion without objection so I'll toss this link out as possibly useful. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=689. The matter was only closed indisputably at the time of the Reformation. For Catholics, it was closed on the authority of the Church. For Protestants, it was closed because ... well, actually, it seemed to be closed on somewhat murkier authority and from what I've read it's a bit of a sore spot that many scholars are still wrestling with.

the point we're discussing is making doctrines out of whole cloth and not based on scripture.

Not quite. I think we are discussing whether "whole cloth" is the alternative to "based on scripture" (as distinguished from "consistent with scripture") given the origins of the scriptural canon. Or "canons" if you want to include the OT for consideration.

Specifically, the teaching of Limbo - please point me at a scripture that in anyway supports this.

I'd rather let the RC establishment do it's own work than have it depend on me. As I understand it, though, the idea was present among Jews in the time of Jesus and was accepted by the early Christian church as explaining what happened to those who were obviously favored by God but equally obviously could not have entered Heaven before the Resurrection. It answered the question, "Is Moses is Hell for being a Jew?" in terms that were consistent with Jewish/Christan belief in the 1st Century.

Like Purgatory, Limbo need not and probably should not be seen as celestial real estate; it is a state of existence, at least as I understand it. And both appear to have scriptural support even if they do not comport with the scriptural understandings of "Bible based" Christian churches B and C (which understandings by definition also do not comport with each other).

I believe strongly there is a lot of false teaching and I can't in good conscience let that pass.

I'm sure lots of people feel the same way and yet do not agree with your own version of true teaching. But this isn't the forum for battering doctrinal errors, however you might define them, out of other people - especially ones that have managed to persist for many centuries.

When good folks see that somehow God's revelation is treated as a 'living' document by some denominations, much as our liberal friends believe the Constitution is a 'living' document, it makes a mockery of our faith

I don't know of any denomination that knowingly takes the "living document" approach to the Bible, although there are some modern aproaches that puzzle me and seem hard to view charitably. But I do think the Martin Luther comment was needlessly antagonistic.

An institution and faith that has been around for thousands of years is almost surely more rigorous, nuanced and defensible than you are allowing - whether it is Catholicism, Judiasm or whatever. The people who contributed value to these bodies of faith over the centuries were presumably not stupid, careless, ignorant or insincere. Personally, I would want to understand such ancient points of view much more thoroughly than I do before I took it upon myself to tell them where they went wrong. Until then, I try to limit myself only to respectfully acknowledging where and how we may disagree. At the appropriate times and places.

James says "what good is it for a man to say he has faith without works"?

Not "have faith without works". Just "say" so.

One reading. Another might point to a distinction between active faith (faith and works) and passive "dead" faith (faith alone) when he observes, "The devils believe and they tremble." At least to me he does seem to be contrasting actual approaches to faith rather than just a hollow pronouncement of faith.

But I don't do this for a living.

Personally, I would want to understand such ancient points of view much more thoroughly than I do before I took it upon myself to tell them where they went wrong.

The irony of this statement is amusing.

Nice strawman. This has nothing to do with the canon of scripture [nicely snipped by VRWC]

Its also interesting that instead of taking the approach of a discussion you take the approach of a usenet debate by snipping comments to distort or take out of context the points I'm trying to make.

Timothy was not an Apostle

How did you parse 'Apostolic Authority' into 'Written by an Apostle'?

But I do think the Martin Luther comment was needlessly antagonistic.

And you seem to want to make this personal, but I really don't care to go down that road, so I'll let you have the last word. But first, please go back to that comment and take special note of the little smiley face.

The irony of this statement is amusing.

I missed it.

you take the approach of a usenet debate by snipping comments to distort or take out of context the points I'm trying to make.

These posts are already at moonbat length, BF. Feel free to restate a point I misinterpret, but accusing me of trying to distort you is out of line.

How did you parse 'Apostolic Authority' into 'Written by an Apostle'?

I don't. I note that it is conveniently defined to include non-Apostles even though writings of actual Apostles did not make the cut. And then I lightly touched on how the other standards were applied, by whom and where they came from.

you seem to want to make this personal

I did get the irony in that one. I try to keep my personal faith out of these discussions and just highlight what I think are intellectually legitimate points that are getting short shrift.

You may want to reread this exchange, as well as your post of 09:21 PM and the last of your 10:31 AM post, before deciding who has gotten too personally involved in the discussion.

please go back to that comment and take special note of the little smiley face.

I noted it. I also took it in the context of the preceding sentence, Jeff's initial post, Monica and RWS's intevening responses, and your subsequent exchange with RWS.

But, like I say, I don't do this for a living. If that was all intended to be less dismissive than it looked to me, I'm very glad to hear it. :)

Wow, I don't read this blog for a bunch of months and I come back to this. :)

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on limbo:

er...

wait a second.

There is no doctrine or dogma on limbo. Limbo is theological speculation, and no more!

We must separate Limbo and Limbus Patronus, or the Limbo of the Fathers. The Limbo of the Fathers very much did exist, "Abraham's Bosom." Lk 16:22-26. In the paragraph in the Catechism explaning the portion of the creed "he descended into Hell."

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":480 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.482

Now, Limbo of the Fathers-- Catholic belief! Now, limbo, as in, what we're discussing, theological opinion, not Catholic doctrine/dogma.

David:

The scriptural foundation for the theological opinion that is the limbo of the infants is based actually on original sin. We start with original sin, which these infants are born into. Original sin merits hell. Of course, these infants are personally innocent. Since no one with the stain of original sin on their soul can enter heaven, but since God is also merciful and just, it is speculated that a limbo exists for the infants, a state of eternal bliss, but not the beatific vision of life with God in heaven. Of course, it is still a theological opinion and not a doctrine/dogma. (That is to say, while we are limited in the ways we can receive God's grace, i.e., though baptism, God is not limited by that, and can certainly choose to sanctify the souls of those he chooses extra-sacramentally. [i.e., see John the Baptist who was sanctified in the womb]).

Iblis: I understand what you're trying to say about Scripture, but I think your terminology is poor, and in some places, flat out... well, wrong. " it does not believe that the Bible is the actual word of God" Check this section of the catechism to see a little better what the CC believes. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books.

But I do understand what you mean: you're talking about the interpretation of Scripture, and that's a whole different game, one that I don't feel like treading on right now. ;)