Answer me this limbo question, please

[mich2]

Why is original sin damning?

I thought that original sin was the lack of sanctifying grace–not the Total Depravity that Protestants teach.

If original sin is only lack of sancitfying grace why would God CHOOSE to not give infants the grace of a baptism of desire?

If John the Baptist can leap in Elizabeth’s womb when she came into Mary’s presence then why couldn’t an infant that was already BORN not respond to God’s grace to give that infant a baptism of desire?

Isn’t that what God would do if the holy scriptures really are correct that it is His will is that all men be saved and that Jesus died for All and not just for the Elect as Protestants maintain?

If that is true how could the All loving and All just God not offer such grace to an infant?

How could an all Just God damn an infant to Hell or to limbo or hinder a little infant to come to Him? What kind of monster God gets off on that?

However; if God does not let non-christians enter into heaven mearly on the grounds that such individuals are following another religious belief, the same type of monster God must exist don’t you think?

What happens, according to you, to a righteous person who dies without having been baptized, and without the intent of being baptized, on the grounds that they might follow another religious belief? Does this person enter Heaven or Hell immediately after he/she dies?
If you claim that such a person may enter Heaven, then why do we bother baptizing anyone, whether infants or mature adults? If the individual must enter into Hell on account of them not having received the gift of baptism, then, why would an infant be allowed to enter Heaven without having been baptized as well?

I believe that, in the last Judgment, all those who have not been baptized, without exception, will have the chance in getting into heaven. This makes the case of unbaptized infants as being able to enter into Heaven as well, but not before Judgement Day.
What the Pope is implying is that since in the infant, no actual sins has been committed, it might be possible for them to receive some type of heavenly baptism, since no personal sins exist which might prevent them from receiving such grace…but there is no guarantee of this being true…the Holy Father never claimed that infants who die without baptism will, without any doubt, enter into Heaven, but claimed this only as a possible hypothesis.

Andre

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, you claimed that the Catholic Church teaches the damnation of pre-Baptismal children due to original sin.

What I said is that the Catholic Church has historically taught that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell.

This has been proven. I didn’t even know that this was up for debate within Catholicism.

You continue to muddy the waters to avoid the simple fact that you are wrong as to what the Church teaches.

How can I be “wrong” about what the Church teaches when I post its very teachings?

1. We are all born with original sin. It is akin to a birth defect in that it is not the result of our personal choice.
2. Therefore our personal culpability for original sin is not the same as our culpability for our freely chosen sin. Original sin is not like other sins.
3. The Sacrament of Baptism washes away sin, including original sin.
4. The Sacrament of Penitence washes away post-Baptismal sins.
5. Pre-Baptismal infants who die are entrusted to the mercy of God.

And this goes back to the OP and the claim that infants are innocent.

Why on earth would God need to show mercy to the innocent? It is only the guilty that need mercy.

This very serious problem has yet to be addressed.

That is clearly stated, avoids the semantic games you like to play with the word “guilt”, and may be clearly judged by any and all as to correctness or incorrectness.

I played no games at all. I merely posted Catholic doctrine. I do not care if you believe it because I definitely don’t. In that regard we are allies, not opponents.

In any event, the RCC teaches (or has taught) that Original Sin necessarily includes guilt for that sin which requires the forgiveness of God. They also taught this without putting the word guilt in quotes to diminish the teaching in any way.

There is no way around this. I don’t think any of us can assume they just did not mean what they said. It is actually self evident, IMO.

…

…

 

[Teflon93]

What I said is that the Catholic Church has historically taught that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell.

This has been proven. I didn’t even know that this was up for debate within Catholicism.

How can I be “wrong” about what the Church teaches when I post its very teachings?

And this goes back to the OP and the claim that infants are innocent.

Why on earth would God need to show mercy to the innocent? It is only the guilty that need mercy.

This very serious problem has yet to be addressed.

I played no games at all. I merely posted Catholic doctrine. I do not care if you believe it because I definitely don’t. In that regard we are allies, not opponents.

In any event, the RCC teaches (or has taught) that Original Sin necessarily includes guilt for that sin which requires the forgiveness of God. They also taught this without putting the word guilt in quotes to diminish the teaching in any way.

There is no way around this. I don’t think any of us can assume they just did not mean what they said. It is actually self evident, IMO.

…

…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church IS the authoritative source of the Church’s teaching. You can modify your claim to HAS taught all you like, but it doesn’t change what the Catholic Church’s teaching IS. It is important to note what it IS lest faithful Catholics take your posts as somehow authoritative on the subject.

You still haven’t addressed the Catechism passage I posted in this regard. That speaks volumes.

Mercy does not imply guilt of anything. You may wish to avail yourself of a dictionary there. I will do it for you, an act of mercy.

From dictionary.com:

1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power; compassion, pity, or benevolence: Have mercy on the poor sinner.
   2.** the disposition to be compassionate or forbearing**: an adversary wholly without mercy.
2. the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, esp. to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty.
3. an act of kindness, compassion, or favor: She has performed countless small mercies for her friends and neighbors.
4. something that gives evidence of divine favor; blessing: It was just a mercy we had our seat belts on when it happened.

You’ll notice several definitions which do not imply that mercy implies guilt.

Original sin is like a birth defect. God in His mercy may overlook this defect.

God’s mercy is the same wellspring from which the potential salvation of all the unbaptized springs, whether infants as in this thread or not. It is the heart of ecumenism. It is the heart of charity.

It is why we Catholics pray for those who are not Catholic, in the fervent hope that you too will reach the gates of Heaven. This is often taken as somehow contradictory to the Church’s understanding of salvation, as though Christ commanded consistency rather than charity toward all.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

mich2: One who is not baptized and has no intent to be Baptized because he is following another faith–if he would have had the desire to be baptized if he knew of the truth of the Catholic then Yes he will be saved.

If that person would have rejected Baptism even if he knew of the truth of it then he will be damned.

Is it possible for Jesus to answer such things when He judges? Yes!

And what is the difference with infants or children before the time of reason? What they would or would not do if they did or did not know better doesn’t make any difference because they are covered by God’s will that all men should be saved.

So do they have an advantage over people past the age of reason? Yes!

Is that fair? Yes! It’s as fair as the Lord paying the exact same wage to one who labors briefly as one who labors for a long time!

 

[Teflon93]

mich2: One who is not baptized and has no intent to be Baptized because he is following another faith–if he would have had the desire to be baptized if he knew of the truth of the Catholic then Yes he will be saved.

If that person would have rejected Baptism even if he knew of the truth of it then he will be damned.

Is it possible for Jesus to answer such things when He judges? Yes!

And what is the difference with infants or children before the time of reason? What they would or would not do if they did or did not know better doesn’t make any difference because they are covered by God’s will that all men should be saved.

So do they have an advantage over people past the age of reason? Yes!

Is that fair? Yes! It’s as fair as the Lord paying the exact same wage to one who labors briefly as one who labors for a long time!

Not to mention the fact that children who die do not get to live a long life, nor have their own children, which is “unfair” in itself.

The question remains, “Why would God create life for the sole purpose of damning it?” This is the situation with pre-baptismal children.

Thankfully, the Church recognizes this as we offer up the souls of the dead children to God’s mercy. It seems far superior to the Calvinistic view to me.

 

[Atemi]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church IS the authoritative source of the Church’s teaching.

But not the only source or even an infallible source.

You can modify your claim to HAS taught all you like, but it doesn’t change what the Catholic Church’s teaching IS.

Catholic Church teaching IS that Original Sin is the very death of the soul and that is why there is the hurry to baptise infants.

As to all the other authoritative source I posted, if they are not what the Catholic Church now teaches, then there are bigger problems here than this thread.

You still haven’t addressed the Catechism passage I posted in this regard. That speaks volumes.

Actually I have and I did again. Please go back and review.

I will not mention all the sources I quoted that you haven’t addressed, however.

Mercy does not imply guilt of anything.

Actually, it does in this case as has been amply demonstrated.

You may wish to avail yourself of a dictionary there. I will do it for you, an act of mercy.

From dictionary.com:

1. compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one’s power; compassion, pity, or benevolence: Have mercy on the poor sinner.
2. the disposition to be compassionate or forbearing: an adversary wholly without mercy.
3. the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, esp. to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty.
4. an act of kindness, compassion, or favor: She has performed countless small mercies for her friends and neighbors.
5. something that gives evidence of divine favor; blessing: It was just a mercy we had our seat belts on when it happened.

You’ll notice several definitions which do not imply that mercy implies guilt.

Ahh.

OK.

So you are saying that when the RCC teaches that she entrusts the eternal destiny of dead unbaptised infants to God’s mercy, the Church is somehow definitely not using defenitions #1 and #3. Yet you know she is definitely using definitions #2, #4, and #5.

That leaves just one more question:

Assuming babies are innocent, what is the eternal fate of those innocent children upon whom God does NOT show mercy?

Original sin is like a birth defect. God in His mercy may overlook this defect.

If they are innocent babies with simply a birth defect, why on earth would God NOT overlook such an affliction?

What kind of God do we have that MAY overlook a birth defect on an innocent baby?

…

 

[Contarini]

OK, I understand the theology behind limbo (for infants). I understand that the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and I accept that. I understand the the Church recognizes cases where baptism of desire or baptism of blood can substitute for water baptism, and I accept that. And I realize that what has not been revealed to us by God is whether infants can achieve some form of baptism other than water baptism, hence the conjecture of limbo.

But that’s not what I want to discuss. I want to ask a simple question of those who support limbo:

Why would God refuse to offer the means of salvation to these innocents (for they have no personal sin whatsoever)? Explain why God would create these innocents knowing that, unlike every other human being (including those guilty of the most heinous sins), he would never offer them the means of salvation.

I know any such answer will involve speculation, but then so does limbo. So speculate away.

Aquinas’s response would be that humans have a natural and a supernatural end (as in final purpose–I realize that my wording could be translated into a cartoon of a human being with “natural” written on one end and “supernatural” on the other!). Limbo is a state of natural happiness, so these infants are not being frustrated of their natural end (though obviously they don’t enjoy many of the natural goods in this life that adults do). God is under no obligation to give eternal life to anyone–it’s a free gift of grace.

Edwin

 

[mich2]

mich2: One who is not baptized and has no intent to be Baptized because he is following another faith–if he would have had the desire to be baptized if he knew of the truth of the Catholic then Yes he will be saved.

One could respond by saying that such a person would certainly desire baptism if he/she only believed in the resurrection
of Jesus. Why is not believing in the resurrection, because of one simply following a different religious belief, is enough to justify eternal condemnation? Do you not believe that such an individual, who has led a righteous life, still might have the potential of being saved at the last Judgement? I do. If so, what happens to such an individual before Judgement Day arrives? Would he/she not be in a place similar to what we call “limbo”?

If that person would have rejected Baptism even if he knew of the truth of it then he will be damned.

Why would one refuse baptism if he/she believed in the effect of the sacrament?

Is it possible for Jesus to answer such things when He judges? Yes!

What happens to this individual in the meantime?

And what is the difference with infants or children before the time of reason? What they would or would not do if they did or did not know better doesn’t make any difference because they are covered by God’s will that all men should be saved.

Are you saying that an infant, before the time of reason,is not in need of being baptized in order for it to enter Heaven if ,God forbid,it dies at such a young age? Do you believe in the practice of infant baptism? If yes, why would you, if God certainly allows infants directly into Heaven?
Also why isn’t the righteous unbaptized person saved immediatly as well, if God wills that all men should be saved?If your answer is that such a hypothetical person having led a righteous life will certainly be saved at the last judgement…we have God’s promise, I agree. However, such a person still needs to wait for Judgement Day nevertheless…why would it be unfair for unbaptized infants to await till Judgement Day in order to be saved as well?Or are you claiming that infants/ foetus have no need of being saved? If they are in need of being saved, what scriptural guarantee do we have that salvation will be given them immediately at death, since baptism is what saves an individual, something the infant still lacks?

So do they have an advantage over people past the age of reason? Yes!

Is that fair? Yes! It’s as fair as the Lord paying the exact same wage to one who labors briefly as one who labors for a long time!

And so, it still would be fair if the infant would have to wait till Judment Day to be saved as well…do you not agree?

Andre

 

[mich2]

Not to mention the fact that children who die do not get to live a long life, nor have their own children, which is “unfair” in itself.

The question remains, “Why would God create life for the sole purpose of damning it?” This is the situation with pre-baptismal children.

Thankfully, the Church recognizes this as we offer up the souls of the dead children to God’s mercy. It seems far superior to the Calvinistic view to me.

So what would be your catholic point of view concerning original sin, then?

Andre

 

[Jerry-Jet]

mich2: Satan believes and knows that the resurrection of Jesus did in fact happen. Satan does not desire baptism.

Is that stupid? Yes! Can people who know the truth of the Catholic faith be stupid and reject it anyway? Yes!

If one is following another faith and has not heard of the resurrection then certainly not believing in something they had never heard about would not damn them.

But say the person believes in God and has heard about the resurrection and feel the Holy Spirit tugging at him to investigate it and Resists and chooses to reject it–even though he may not know it fully–would such a person as that be damend?

Yes! Why? Because in Resisting the Holy Spirit–even if it is just do make an INQUIRY about the truth or the falsity of the resurrection–in Resisting the Holy Spirit that person has committed Mortal sin.

Yes it is possible for Any Non Catholic to committ a mortal sin!

If one stays in that state until death regardless of 10 zillion great wonderful things that they may do in another religion they will go to hell!

Why? Because Jesus said that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the world to come!

It is my opinion that God has a brain large enough to provide the grace of a Baptism of Desire for children who die before the age of reason.

Why should they be Baptized you may ask–because Jesus says they should–that does not mean that Jesus isn’t big enough to work around their dumb parent’s sin or around original sin which is not sin of guilt but lack of sanctifying grace which He as God can provide to the infant.

And baptism of infants is not to keep them from going to Hell Only Before the age of reason–it is for salvation after the age of reason as well as before it.

The reason the age of reason makes a difference is that once it is achieved the child is not covered Solely by Baptism alone-he is responsible for his reaction to God’s grace–in other words after the age of reason a person can mortally sin–remain in a state of mortal sin–die in that state and go to hell because of it.

In other words you can have salvation through Baptism as an infant but lose that salvation later.

That is not the case before the age of reason becuse before then an infant can’t respond to grace.

Normally we should Baptize those infants so that God can work grace in them in the community of the church–Baptism is about the community too–it is not just about the individual.

In my opinion it would be fitting with the mrecy and justness and love of God that When parents are sinners and do not Baptize infants or are killed and there is no one to baptize them before they die–God steps in and gives infants the grace for a baptism of desire.

God is that big! He’s not some dumbo that sits back and says "Oh what a pity–they didn’t baptize that infant so I guess that means Hell or Limbo because their parents are dumb sinners.

Is God that dumb?

Some Limbo believers think he is.

Some of them cherish the Binding of God to act with love because of man’s stupidity.

Some of them feel like it makes them more loyal Catholics if they bow down at the altar of what they Think sacred Tradition is.

Some of them are dumb!

God isn’t!

 

[Teflon93]

So what would be your catholic point of view concerning original sin, then?

Andre

Posted earlier in the thread—please scroll up.

 

[Teflon93]

But not the only source or even an infallible source.

Atemi, you don’t seem to even know what “infallible” means. Why don’t you try looking that up before you persist in error?

Catholic Church teaching IS that Original Sin is the very death of the soul and that is why there is the hurry to baptise infants.

I have posted the Catechism passages. You continue to willfully misconstrue what they say. Since you are not Pope, and since the passages are clearly posted above, I doubt there’s any chance anyone will be misled by you rather than enlightened by the Church.

As to all the other authoritative source I posted, if they are not what the Catholic Church now teaches, then there are bigger problems here than this thread.

The bigger problem is that you seem hellbent on distorting Catholic teaching for whatever purpose suits you. The Catechism remains the authoritative source for Catholic teaching, not you. You are not Pope.

Actually I have and I did again. Please go back and review.

No, you have not. You merely changed your tack to “perhaps that’s what you teach NOW” whereas your original point, shown to be wrong, was that the Catholic church teaches that these children are damned.

I will not mention all the sources I quoted that you haven’t addressed, however.

I haven’t referenced the Westminster Confession, “The Da Vinci Code”, nor the Gospel of Atemi. These are all irrelevant to what the Catholic Church teaches, which is what is in the Catechism.

Actually, it does in this case as has been amply demonstrated.

You have only proven that you have no credibility on what the Catholic Church teaches.

Ahh.

OK.

So you are saying that when the RCC teaches that she entrusts the eternal destiny of dead unbaptised infants to God’s mercy, the Church is somehow definitely not using defenitions #1 and #3. Yet you know she is definitely using definitions #2, #4, and #5.

Given that the Church clearly maintains a difference between original sin (which is a state) and mortal sin (which is a choice), a reasonable person would conclude the above.

Given that you have maintained that no such option in the definition of “mercy” exists above, readers should note that you were wrong on this and have not had the forthrightness to admit to being so.

That leaves just one more question:

Assuming babies are innocent, what is the eternal fate of those innocent children upon whom God does NOT show mercy?

I don’t know. There isn’t a clear teaching in this regard (unborn children not saved). This might fall under “invincible ignorance”, I suppose.

If they are innocent babies with simply a birth defect, why on earth would God NOT overlook such an affliction?

What kind of God do we have that MAY overlook a birth defect on an innocent baby?

I have not claimed God would not. In fact, you are the one claiming for whatever that the Church teaches they are damned. I have demonstrated through the relevant Catechism passage that this is not so. Moreover, the actual practice during pre-Baptismal children’s funeral demonstrates that this is not so.

I’d say there’s one more question:

Why do you persist in your erroneous claim that the Catholic Church teaches these children are damned?

Is it because you wish to attack the Catholic Church, regardless of what she actually teaches?

 

[Teflon93]

Some of them cherish the Binding of God to act with love because of man’s stupidity.

This is an excellent point which deserves further discussion.

Much of this thread has dealt with those who for whatever reason want to pin God down to a definitive ruling here. That’s not how it works; indeed, none of us knows definitively that we shall be saved, although we all hope we will be.

God is God. He is the judge, not us. Job had far greater claim to challenge God’s justice than any of us do, and yet God’s response to Job forever indicated how weak even his claim was.

When we Catholics say we give over our unbaptized children to God’s mercy, we are saying what we say when we pray the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy will be done.”

It is remarkable how many of us say “Thy will be done”, solemnly and repeatedly, yet somehow fail to understand what that means and insist on terms and conditions.

 

[Teflon93]

Here are the relevant Catechism passages I posted previously.

Original Sin.

Entrusting the souls of children who die without Baptism to God.

 

[mich2]

Jerry-Jet

If one is following another faith and has not heard of the resurrection then certainly not believing in something they had never heard about would not damn them.

So what would happen to the soul of such a person at the time of his/her death? Would this individual enter Heaven, Hell, or Limbo?

But say the person believes in God and has heard about the resurrection and feel the Holy Spirit tugging at him to investigate it and Resists and chooses to reject it–even though he may not know it fully–would such a person as that be damend?

Yes!

…

Why? Because Jesus said that Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the world to come!

If a person is happy following the Jewish Faith, and, although might have inquired concerning the person of Jesus and Mohammed, decided to remain within the Jewish
faith; such a person will be sent into eternal Hell, according to you?..if not, please elaborate.

Yes it is possible for Any Non Catholic to committ a mortal sin

I agree with you that such a person is in a state of Mortal sin in the sense that this person was born with the Original Sin, which is what St Paul calls the sinful nature…this is a nature that continuously leads one to sin. We can fight against such sinful tendencies (not only christians but all people) but we will never escape from commiting at least venial sins. This nature needs to be destroyed in order to receive another, which will follow, according to it’s nature, God’s law. This process is called baptism.An infant is in need to receive such a change in nature as well.

Therefore, I agree with the Holy Father that infants **might**** possibly** receive this change in nature immediatly after death since no actual sins might prevent them from receiving this grace of God. However, no scriptural, nor any

church council ensures us that this must be true.
God could very well wait till Judgement Day in the same way He will do for non baptized righteous people.

If one stays in that state until death regardless of 10 zillion great wonderful things that they may do in another religion they will go to hell!

I agree…but only because such a person has not (yet) been saved throught the process of baptism.But you have not shown me anything that ensures the infant as having received some type of baptism.

Why should they be Baptized you may ask–because Jesus says they should–that does not mean that Jesus isn’t big enough to work around their dumb parent’s sin or around original sin which is not sin of guilt but lack of sanctifying grace which He as God can provide to the infant.

So we baptize infants only because Jesus said that we should…? Not because we want to save them from their inheritance of the Original Sin?

And baptism of infants is not to keep them from going to Hell Only Before the age of reason–it is for salvation after the age of reason as well as before it.

You wrote it is for salvation after the age of reason as well as before it.. But this doesn’t make sense if all infants, according to you, must enter Heaven.

In my opinion it would be fitting with the mrecy and justness and love of God that When parents are sinners and do not Baptize infants or are killed and there is no one to baptize them before they die–God steps in and gives infants the grace for a baptism of desire.

I agree that it would be** fitting **for God to allow an infant to receive the baptism of desire…This is what the Holy Father is saying, which is the reason that we can hope for the infant in receiving such a grace without being retained in Limbo. I have no problems with this…However, we can only hope for this hypothesis to be true.

God is that big! He’s not some dumbo that sits back and says "Oh what a pity–they didn’t baptize that infant so I guess that means Hell or Limbo because their parents are dumb sinners.

Is God that dumb?

Some Limbo believers think he is.

Some of them cherish the Binding of God to act with love because of man’s stupidity.

Some of them feel like it makes them more loyal Catholics if they bow down at the altar of what they Think sacred Tradition is.

Some of them are dumb!

God isn’t!

So, if Limbo of the children exists, this would make God to be dumb…this is the problem I have with your form of reasoning.

Andre

 

[Teflon93]

So, if Limbo of the children exists, this would make God to be dumb…this is the problem I have with your form of reasoning.

Andre

Particularly since the Catechism passage clearly indicates what we are hoping for is an alternate path to salvation. The theory of Limbo was a sketch of that hope, a mere theological construct as to what it might be, but as noted this was never taken to be definitive. Since God has not told us what actually happens, it remains a mystery.

Those who hold to the certain damnation of these infants are on no surer footing than those who hold to their certain salvation. We do not know, and absent God telling us will not know.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

I know any such answer will involve speculation, but then so does limbo. So speculate away.

I’ve heard it said they are in a happy state, knowing God and feeling His Presence, but they are deprived of the Beatific Vision.

I don’t know, I’ll find out one day, so I just don’t worry about it, I would hope for every-ones Salvation, the reality of it is probably different.

 

[mich2]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 **allow us to hope **that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

As always, when somebody claims the Catholic Church teaches this or that, the Catechism provides crystal clarity.

It seems clear to me that the catechism reads of having hope
that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism

I don’t have any problems with this at all… however, this doesn’t take away the possibility of the existance of limbo of infants as being the case instead.

And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

… original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

According to the above, Original sin is a state where one is inclined to sin. An infant has such a state which needs to be destroyed as well, and therefore makes baptism to be a need in order for it to enter Heaven. While they might receive such a new nature at death, we cannot be certain of this, being why the Church teaches that we can only hope for such a teaching to be true.

Guess I’m not anathema after all, Atemi.

No one is speaking of anyone being anathemized…we are speaking of doctrinal hypothesis…not dogma.

Andre

 

[mich2]

Particularly since the Catechism passage clearly indicates what we are hoping for is an alternate path to salvation. The theory of Limbo was a sketch of that hope, a mere theological construct as to what it might be, but as noted this was never taken to be definitive. Since God has not told us what actually happens, it remains a mystery.

Those who hold to the certain damnation of these infants are on no surer footing than those who hold to their certain salvation. We do not know, and absent God telling us will not know.

I fully agree with you…I am only speaking to those who hold as a certainty the immediate salvation of infants. I also, have the same hope which the Holy Father speaks about.
The danger in the full assurance of infants in getting into Heaven lies in the concept that they, according to their nature, are capable of entering into Heaven without going through any changes of some kind, since they are not guilty of any actual sin.This teaching does indeed exist among protestants, but it would be an error to hold such a view as a catholic. This is totally against the Catholic teaching concerning Original Sin.

Andre

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I do not believe God sends infants to Limbo.I’m not even sure if I believe in Limbo anymore.If it does exist,I think its a big, peaceful meadow where animals and non-believers go.