As a child sent to Catechism in the Roman Catholic Church, I naturally heard of limbo, but gave it no deep thought. Later limbo would mean a Caribbean dance under a progressively lowered bar, which given my physiology and the meager effort I exerted, produced only a lot of sand in my hair. In common parlance, it means a suspended place, a no man’s land, a place of indecision, a place of deferral pending other events or decisions.
Christians have been wrangling with limbo for centuries. It is a place where unbaptized babies go (as well as Jesus, for even though He took on the sins of the world, surely He could not go to Hell, but that is a topic for another day), a kind of warm swimming pool where we can float but have no way to ascend unto heaven. The doctrine was first asserted by St. Augustine in an anti-Pelagian argument (not going to get into that) around the turn of the 5th Century A.D. Baptism had two major purposes: the induction of the soul into the fold of the Church, and to remove Original Sin. It was for the second reason that Augustine came up with his argument. Tertullian in the 2nd Century had coined the term “Original Sin” for the fall of Adam and its residual stain on all mankind. Out, out, damned spot!
The arguments became predictably convoluted. Here’s an example of the linguistic gymnastics:
As for the expression limbo of infants, it was forged at the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the "resting place" of such infants (the "border" of the inferior region). Theologians could discuss this question, however, without using the word limbo. Their doctrines should not be confused with the use of the word limbo.
How could any one possibly be confused?
In April 2007, the Vatican authorized publication of a document entitled, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized." Herein it is stated: “the Christian community notes that there is no mention of limbo in the liturgy” (part 5); “When the New Testament mentions the practice of baptism, it generally points to the baptism of adults”; and “Finally, when reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without baptism, the church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Jesus Christ, in his existence for us and in the redemptive power of his sacrifice, died and rose again for all. By his whole life and teaching, he revealed the fatherhood of God and his universal love.” (part 7)
(Those who wish to view this document in its entirety may find it at http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7529, among other sites.) Of course clerics around the Christian world are dissecting this document and its theological implications, one of which may be that centuries of Church teaching about limbo may simply be swept away (hopefully not throwing the baby out with the bath water, heh heh.)
Quoth the Guardian: “None, I feel, will question the fact that the fundamental reason why the unity of the Church of Christ was irretrievably shattered, and its influence was in the course of time undermined, was that the Edifice which the Fathers of the Church reared after the passing of His First Apostle was an Edifice that rested in nowise upon the explicit directions of Christ Himself.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, pg. 20)
Bahá'u'lláh stigmatizes all these church dogmas time and time again as “idle fancies and vain imaginings.” Notwithstanding, Bahá’ís face the same dilemma from a different perspective. We know that souls progress eternally, and that life on earth is an important stage during which our purpose is to acquire spiritual perfections through our actions, choices, and decisions that will be of use to us in the next world. Naturally we ask how this works out for those who are autistic, mentally retarded, disabled in other ways, and especially if we die too young to have made progress. Laura Clifford Barney asked ‘Abdu’l-Bahá this question, and received a direct answer:
Question. -- What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?
Answer. -- These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.
‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pg. 240
Let us not waste our breaths bashing those who tried to understand the Scriptures and God’s will. “God hath forgiven what is past.” (Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, pg. 219) How can we be unforgiving to those who, faced with the silence of Divine Guidance on a matter, tried to give it their best understanding based on the implications of the Bible? Of course, Bahá’ís face many quandaries about matters not specifically revealed in the Holy Text, but we have been given the Divinely-ordained Institution of the Universal House of Justice on these matters (unlike, say, the Sanhedrin, the Catholic Church or the Caliphate, which arrogated this status for themselves, making themselves “partners with God” in the revelation of His Will and Law.) Furthermore, Bahá’ís are expressly forbidden to impose their understanding on others, creating sects and inserting unauthorized dogma into the pure fabric of the Faith. But at least we can tell our Christian friends when enlightenment through progressive stages reaches clerical authority -- as it is slowly but inexorably doing -- and encourage them to accept the Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh and avoid the rush.
Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created.
Bahá'u'lláh , The Arabic Hidden Words, #22
Christians have been wrangling with limbo for centuries. It is a place where unbaptized babies go (as well as Jesus, for even though He took on the sins of the world, surely He could not go to Hell, but that is a topic for another day), a kind of warm swimming pool where we can float but have no way to ascend unto heaven. The doctrine was first asserted by St. Augustine in an anti-Pelagian argument (not going to get into that) around the turn of the 5th Century A.D. Baptism had two major purposes: the induction of the soul into the fold of the Church, and to remove Original Sin. It was for the second reason that Augustine came up with his argument. Tertullian in the 2nd Century had coined the term “Original Sin” for the fall of Adam and its residual stain on all mankind. Out, out, damned spot!
The arguments became predictably convoluted. Here’s an example of the linguistic gymnastics:
As for the expression limbo of infants, it was forged at the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the "resting place" of such infants (the "border" of the inferior region). Theologians could discuss this question, however, without using the word limbo. Their doctrines should not be confused with the use of the word limbo.
How could any one possibly be confused?
In April 2007, the Vatican authorized publication of a document entitled, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized." Herein it is stated: “the Christian community notes that there is no mention of limbo in the liturgy” (part 5); “When the New Testament mentions the practice of baptism, it generally points to the baptism of adults”; and “Finally, when reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without baptism, the church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Jesus Christ, in his existence for us and in the redemptive power of his sacrifice, died and rose again for all. By his whole life and teaching, he revealed the fatherhood of God and his universal love.” (part 7)
(Those who wish to view this document in its entirety may find it at http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7529, among other sites.) Of course clerics around the Christian world are dissecting this document and its theological implications, one of which may be that centuries of Church teaching about limbo may simply be swept away (hopefully not throwing the baby out with the bath water, heh heh.)
Quoth the Guardian: “None, I feel, will question the fact that the fundamental reason why the unity of the Church of Christ was irretrievably shattered, and its influence was in the course of time undermined, was that the Edifice which the Fathers of the Church reared after the passing of His First Apostle was an Edifice that rested in nowise upon the explicit directions of Christ Himself.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, pg. 20)
Bahá'u'lláh stigmatizes all these church dogmas time and time again as “idle fancies and vain imaginings.” Notwithstanding, Bahá’ís face the same dilemma from a different perspective. We know that souls progress eternally, and that life on earth is an important stage during which our purpose is to acquire spiritual perfections through our actions, choices, and decisions that will be of use to us in the next world. Naturally we ask how this works out for those who are autistic, mentally retarded, disabled in other ways, and especially if we die too young to have made progress. Laura Clifford Barney asked ‘Abdu’l-Bahá this question, and received a direct answer:
Question. -- What is the condition of children who die before attaining the age of discretion or before the appointed time of birth?
Answer. -- These infants are under the shadow of the favor of God; and as they have not committed any sin and are not soiled with the impurities of the world of nature, they are the centers of the manifestation of bounty, and the Eye of Compassion will be turned upon them.
‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pg. 240
Let us not waste our breaths bashing those who tried to understand the Scriptures and God’s will. “God hath forgiven what is past.” (Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, pg. 219) How can we be unforgiving to those who, faced with the silence of Divine Guidance on a matter, tried to give it their best understanding based on the implications of the Bible? Of course, Bahá’ís face many quandaries about matters not specifically revealed in the Holy Text, but we have been given the Divinely-ordained Institution of the Universal House of Justice on these matters (unlike, say, the Sanhedrin, the Catholic Church or the Caliphate, which arrogated this status for themselves, making themselves “partners with God” in the revelation of His Will and Law.) Furthermore, Bahá’ís are expressly forbidden to impose their understanding on others, creating sects and inserting unauthorized dogma into the pure fabric of the Faith. But at least we can tell our Christian friends when enlightenment through progressive stages reaches clerical authority -- as it is slowly but inexorably doing -- and encourage them to accept the Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh and avoid the rush.
Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created.
Bahá'u'lláh , The Arabic Hidden Words, #22
No comments:
Post a Comment