Answer me this limbo question, please

[Excelency]

I just don’t understand how so many Catholics can come to the rescue of Limbo. The Holy Father has given it last rites. Our Lord said seperation from God is death. Does anyone wish to challange that? There can be no happiness if you can never be with God. Our souls were designed to wither and die at the Lords rejection. That is my belief

 

[clmowry]

My personal belief is that they go directly to heaven pass go and collect $200.

The Church just has no Traditional basis to make a diffinitive statement on the subject.

Seems about the only way we’ll get one would be direct revelation to a Pope who pronounces it as such.

That doesn’t seem to happen much.

Chuck

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.

 

[Teflon93]

My personal belief is that they go directly to heaven pass go and collect $200.

The Church just has no Traditional basis to make a diffinitive statement on the subject.

Seems about the only way we’ll get one would be direct revelation to a Pope who pronounces it as such.

That doesn’t seem to happen much.

Chuck

I think you’re right. For all the flack Catholics take over papal infallibility, the Pope makes such pronouncements a lot less frequently than non-Catholic clergy and laymen claim to.

Wouldn’t it be easy for Pope Benedict XVI to simply say, “God just told me there’s no Limbo, they go straight to heaven?”

Anti-Catholics don’t seem to appreciate how restrained Popes truly are, unlike say, an Oral Roberts claiming “God will call [him] home” if he doesn’t raise enough money.

 

[SeanTom]

Limbo today

I though I would do some research on Limbo and here is what I came up with:

Limbo was conceived in the Middle Ages to solve a problem relating to original sin, the inherited stain of Adam and Eve. .

In Roman Catholics terminology, limbo was the temporary status of the souls of good persons who died BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. The word limbo has also been used to refer to the permanent status of the unbaptized who died in infancy, without having committed any personal sins, but without having been freed from original sin (the Limbo of Children), though the latter use has NEVER received official approval.

Limbo comes from the latin limbus meaning a hem or an edge or a boundary. While “limbo” is often popularly understood to be a “place where souls go”, the term also describes and reflects theological uncertainty. As such, the limbo of children IS NOT PART OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION’S OFFICIAL DOCTRINE (compared to purgatory, which IS a part of Roman Catholic doctrine). Official Church teaching remains that the status of these souls (who do not seem to deserve hell, yet cannot follow the divinely-revealed path to heaven) is in limbo (temporary restraint) — in other words, THEIR FATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY ANY BUT GOD.

One event that may have given creed to Limbo follows:

Jesus told the “good thief” on the cross that today he would be with Him in paradise. (Luke 23:43). But between the Resurrection and the Ascension, Jesus told his followers that he has “not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17). So then, how could the thief be with Jesus in paradise on that particular day of his dying on the cross? A possible resolution to this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that Jesus’ statement to the thief can be understood in two different ways, depending on where you place the comma, before the word “today“ or after the word “today“.

If you will recall from a previous Bible study, the original manuscripts were hand printed without punctuation marks or spaces between the words. Punctuation marks were placed in the writings by the interpreters as they were re-written into a more readable form and in different languages. It is very possible that the interpreters placed the comma in the wrong place. Thus, either Jesus said (1)“Truly I say to you, TODAY you shall be with Me in Paradise” or “Truly I say to you TODAY, you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43, NASB). The latter interpretation would be consistent with Jesus’ subsequent statement to his followers, i.e, that he had not yet ascended. By this last reading, many theologians believed that the good thief was held in LIMBO until Jesus’ Ascension made it possible for him (the thief) to enter heaven.

In recent years, the theological speculation of Limbo has fallen out of popularity amongst many lay Catholics and theologians alike. The Catechism of the Catholic Church entrusts the fate of infants and the unborn to the mercy of God:

CCC #1261 states:
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’ [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], 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.

MY FINAL COMMENTS: Remember that, although some of us were taught by Nuns and Priests about the existence of Limbo, Limbo has NEVER been officially approved by the church and was NEVER a part of the Catholic Religion’s Official Doctrine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. This allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. But this is also more of a reason not to prevent little children from coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Remember, “Indeed, the great mercy of God desires that all men should be saved”. God is all knowing; He knows what is in our hearts; He knows the pure innocence of infants and small children; and through His mercy, He, through His tenderness for children, and compassion in His judgment, will bring them into His Heavenly Kingdom. I personally can not ever conceive that any little innocent child would ever be refused from entering God’s Kingdom.
2

 

[Genesis315]

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.

St. Alphonsus Liguori answers this objection here:

catholictradition.org/Classics/prayer-4f.htm

(warning: that site does have some sketchy things on it, but it also has a wealth of authentic Catholic literature like the above from Prayer: the Great Means of Salvation and Perfection by St. Alphonsus Liguori).

Honestly, I am not totally convinced by St. Alphonsus’ reasoning here–mainly because his reasoning in other parts of this same work provides a better argument for vicarious desire and he doesn’t take that into account here (that is, the Church praying the salvation of infants will be efficacious).

 

[Atemi]

Original sin is not like other sins, in that it is a birthright, not a choice. Because it is a birthright, we are not “guilty” of it.

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema”

This is your church’s teaching. All I can do is repeat it.

…

 

[Teflon93]

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema”

This is your church’s teaching. All I can do is repeat it.

…

Yes, and you can quote without context all you like to suit whatever purpose you have.

This passage refers to those who refuse to acknowledge the salvific role of baptism, does it not?

Do you believe the Catholic Church blames infants for original sin? Do you believe the Catholic Church makes no distinction between original sin and mortal sin freely entered into?

 

[Atemi]

Yes, and you can quote without context all you like to suit whatever purpose you have.

I quoted everything in context. Everything is in the open for all to see.

You are talking like I made this up. LOL, no. This is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

This passage refers to those who refuse to acknowledge the salvific role of baptism, does it not?

No.

This passage refers to those who deny that the guilt of Original Sin is remitted in baptism. This is the guilt that you are saying does not exist for some reason.

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema”

Do you believe the Catholic Church blames infants for original sin?

Blame of no blame, Original Sin damns.

“the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished” (Infallible Council of Florence)

That is the whole reason for water baptism and the remission of that guilt. There is no way around it.

The Catholic Church teaches that they cast the fate of dead, unbaptised infants over to the mercy of God. Are any of us to actually believe that God must have mercy on the innocent?

Does God ever condemn the innocent?

Never.

It is against His character and He condemns such thinking as ungodly all through His Word.

Do you believe the Catholic Church makes no distinction between original sin and mortal sin freely entered into?

Of course. As I said before:

Babies are not said to be guilty of personal sin, but of Original Sin…which is damning nonetheless. I personally do not think someone being punished in Hell forever for Original Sin alone will get any solace in the fact that at least they were not guilty of personal sin.

…

 

[Teflon93]

I quoted everything in context. Everything is in the open for all to see.

You are talking like I made this up. LOL, no. This is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

No, I am saying that you have extracted one line and are playing semantic games with the word “guilt” to suit whatever purpose you have.

No.

This passage refers to those who deny that the guilt of Original Sin is remitted in baptism. This is the guilt that you are saying does not exist for some reason.

You are failing to account for the difference in culpability one has with freely-chosen mortal sin versus original sin. Baptism is salvific; it washes away sin, and that is what the passage refers to. Simple grammar. I am saying that you continue to twist, torture, fold, spindle and mutilate to somehow claim infants in utero are sinners in the same sense that we are all sinners. This is not true, and conflates two sacraments—baptism and penitence. Baptism is indeed required so that original sin is washed away an one can begin to live a godly life, to awaken within the soul and conscience a knowledge of good, and to place one on the path to salvation, with repentance and confession necessary for when we stray off that path. These babies have not strayed; they were never shown the path at all, and those who claim that they are damned presume knowledge they do not have.

So prove they’re damned.

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema”

Blame of no blame, Original Sin damns.

“the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished” (Infallible Council of Florence)

Really? The conference was called “The Infallible Council of Florence”?

Tell you what—rather than trust to your excerpts, I’ll review the Council of Florence again for myself.

That is the whole reason for water baptism and the remission of that guilt. There is no way around it.

The Catholic Church teaches that they cast the fate of dead, unbaptised infants over to the mercy of God. Are any of us to actually believe that God must have mercy on the innocent?

Does God ever condemn the innocent?

Never.

It is against His character and He condemns such thinking as ungodly all through His Word.

You make so many false assumptions in the above that it is a marvel of knotty fallaciousness.

It bears noting:

1. God judges us, we do not judge God (cf. Job). What we believe to be just and righteous is not a replacement for what God believes.
2. The collective guilt of original sin and the guilt of mortal sin are not identical.
3. God is merciful, and the attempts to bind God by somehow claiming He must damn this one or must save that one are doomed to failure.
4. Anyone who presumes to know “the whole reason” for a sacrament is talking out his hat.

Of course. As I said before:

Babies are not said to be guilty of personal sin, but of Original Sin…which is damning nonetheless. I personally do not think someone being punished in Hell forever for Original Sin alone will get any solace in the fact that at least they were not guilty of personal sin.

…

So you believe that unbaptized infants who die will be eternally punished in the same fashion as mass murderers?

 

[Teflon93]

From the Catechism:

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. 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. **
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 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.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

Thus when we talk about the “guilt” of original sin we are talking of a different sort of guilt than that of mortal sins committed of our own free will.

 

[Teflon93]

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.

Guess I’m not anathema after all, Atemi.

 

[bpbasilphx]

My understanding–as told to me by several older priests, trained before V2, one a Trappist abbot–is the limbo was a theologoumenon (theological opinion) and was NEVER de fide–a required part of faith.

 

[Atemi]

**
You are talking like I made this up. LOL, no. This is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church.**

No, I am saying that you have extracted one line and are playing semantic games with the word “guilt” to suit whatever purpose you have.

No. I have quoted multiple authoritative sources that confirm that there is guilt associated with Original Sin, not just with personal sin.

And I am not trying to suit any purpose, but only show that those with the stain of Original Sin stand guilty before God according to RC teaching.

**This passage refers to those who deny that the guilt of Original Sin is remitted in baptism. **

You are failing to account for the difference in culpability one has with freely-chosen mortal sin versus original sin.

The different types of culpability are irrelevant when one is guilty of Original Sin. I was only addressing Original Sin because that is what has bearing on the point being made in the OP.

The culpability for personal sin is a different thread.

Baptism is salvific; it washes away sin, and that is what the passage refers to. Simple grammar.

It is like repeating it is not doing any good.

Trent is clear that those who deny that the guilt of Original Sin is remitted in baptism are anathema. To say there is no guilt in Original Sin only contradicts the infallible doctrine of the RCC.

I am saying that you continue to twist, torture, fold, spindle and mutilate to somehow claim infants in utero are sinners in the same sense that we are all sinners.

Well we all know that I never said anyone is guilty in “the same sense.” Actually, I have said otherwise multiple times now.

I am twisting nothing, though painting me as the villain might feel good.

These babies have not strayed; they were never shown the path at all, and those who claim that they are damned presume knowledge they do not have.

I am not claiming that the Church teaches babies have strayed, but that they are guilty. That’s all, and it has been documented thoroughly.

**Blame of no blame, Original Sin damns.

“the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished” (Infallible Council of Florence) **

Tell you what—rather than trust to your excerpts, I’ll review the Council of Florence again for myself.

Please do. It has been infallibly defined.

**That is the whole reason for water baptism and the remission of that guilt. There is no way around it.

The Catholic Church teaches that they cast the fate of dead, unbaptised infants over to the mercy of God. Are any of us to actually believe that God must have mercy on the innocent?

Does God ever condemn the innocent?

Never.

It is against His character and He condemns such thinking as ungodly all through His Word.**

You make so many false assumptions in the above that it is a marvel of knotty fallaciousness.

What false assumptions?

All I am doing is repeating Catholic doctrine.

1. The collective guilt of original sin and the guilt of mortal sin are not identical.

Never said they were, but it is good to see that you now recognize that your church teaches that babies are guilty of Original Sin.

Before you said that was not true.

1. God is merciful, and the attempts to bind God by somehow claiming He must damn this one or must save that one are doomed to failure.

I never made any such claim.

1. Anyone who presumes to know “the whole reason” for a sacrament is talking out his hat.

Why the rush to baptise little babies if they are innocent? If babies are innocent, then there is no fear of their loss because God never condemns the innocent.

Why trust in the mercy of God when it comes to little babies? Mercy is not needed for the innocent.

We all know this.

**Of course. As I said before:

Babies are not said to be guilty of personal sin, but of Original Sin…which is damning nonetheless. I personally do not think someone being punished in Hell forever for Original Sin alone will get any solace in the fact that at least they were not guilty of personal sin.**

So you believe that unbaptized infants who die will be eternally punished in the same fashion as mass murderers?

We are talking about what the Catholic Church teaches about the guilt of Original Sin, not about me. I think you are confusing the two.

…

 

[Atemi]

From the Catechism:

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

Please notice what you quoted above.

Speaking of Original Sin specifically:

“he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin”

Remission of sins for infants because what they have inherited is the death of their soul, even at birth.

What forgiveness do the innocent require?

Only the guilty require forgiveness.

Thus when we talk about the “guilt” of original sin we are talking of a different sort of guilt than that of mortal sins committed of our own free will.

All the authorities I cited never put the word guilt in quotes like you have. Why would you do so?

And the type of guilt is irrelevant. The point is that they are indeed guilty according to RC doctrine.

Before you claimed of Original Sin:

“we are not “guilty” of it”

It seems you have come around to finally accepting otherwise.

…

 

[Excelency]

Cardinal Ratzinger did not believe in limbo, as Pope he has denied it’s existance. Since the Holy Father has spoken, are not those who continue the doctrine of limbo in contradiction to what the HCC teaches? I thought this was a sin.

The Holy Father has chosen to espouse the mercy of God, how dare anyone contradict him and try to reafirm the existance of this fictional place. The HCC, in it’s wisdom never accepted Limbo as official Church doctrine, Why are so many of you contradicting our Holy Father by trying to resucitate something so hateful as Limbo? Have any of you Limbo proponents actually tried to comprehend eternity? How long can five minutes seem like in a bad situation? Billions of Suns will come and go, while we are singing the praises of God in Heaven. While they burn forever for a sin that is attributed to them, you call that mercy?

The question of what happens to those babies should never have been asked. Never mind the unbaptized, what about the one who made this accusation against God in the first place. If the Holy Father is right, and we as Catholics must believe that he is, then the author must be one of the most hated souls in all of Hell.

 

[Romans12]

Hmm… I don’t like this thread at all

I mean it is interesting, but there is ALOT of specualtion on this topic.

I cant even recall a sermon or anything close that has even discussed this subject.

Purgatory yes… Limbo no…

I have heard from priests that the Church offers up the souls of infants during the funeral service, something I haven’t personally witnessed…

The Catechism has no reference to “Limbo” either… so it is very frustrating to say the least.

I’ll just go with my personal belief… that God is nothing but a merciful God, and that he wouldn’t abandon infants that don’t have the capacity to exercise “free will”…

 

[mich2]

Cardinal Ratzinger did not believe in limbo, as Pope he has denied it’s existance. Since the Holy Father has spoken, are not those who continue the doctrine of limbo in contradiction to what the HCC teaches? I thought this was a sin.

Does the Holy Father believe that an unbaptized person,who, after having lived a life of high christian moral values, who also was extremely generous towards those in need, having committed no mortal sins and very few venial ones…one who lived a life equal to those whom we proclaim to be great saints, will enter into heaven immediately after having died? If not; then why would an infant be more precious than one who has fought evil all his/her life and succeeded in living a life according to the Holy Spirit, even without having been baptized?
The issue, I believe is that we all will have the chance in entering into Heaven because of the sacrifice of Christ…some before others. Did not St Paul make such a statement? Jews before Gentiles?
The question remains whether it’s possible for an infant(especially in the case of a foetus) to receive a form of baptism after it dies? The answer remains a possibility since no actual sin will prevent it from receiving such a grace. However,a change is still needed before the child will enter Heaven. It’s sinful nature will need to be destroyed; Therefore, for those who claim that an infant can enter into heaven because it is pure…I believe those to be off tangent from catholic teachings concerning original sin.

Andre

 

[Brendan]

:

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…

Salvation is an unmerited Gift. We don’t merit salvation simply by being created by God.

It is a Gift, God may freely give it, or He may freely withhold it, we have no claim on it.

He has given us His Promise that the Gift will be given at Baptism.

Since God is free to give or withhold the Gift, we cannot know for certain that the gift is given without Baptism.

In one case, we have Absolute Certainty that the Gift is given with Baptism.

With the other, we have no certainty, by definition.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

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?

 

[Teflon93]

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

You have completely avoided the catechism passage I quoted which utterly refutes your claim.

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

In so doing, you simply wound your own credibility.

Now, before your distortions and contortions go unaddressed, I will state baldly what I believe:

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.

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.

If any portion of it conflicts with Church teaching, my brothers and sisters will correct me.

The Catechism passages on original sin and pre-Baptismal children who die have been posted; anyone who wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches (as opposed to what Atemi claims or would have it teach) can read them.