Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
However, I think an exception is made for babies who’s parents would’ve baptized but we unable to because they died in utero or shortly after birth before baptism was possible.
That is your opinion and not one given by Christ or the Church. Jesus mandated Baptism and He never said He would saved babies who were not baptized. You can hope Jesus will save them, but you cannot believe He will and still be in-line with His Church and Christ.
Otherwise I believe the most dangerous time for anyone throughout their entire lives is from the moment of conception until they are born because there is literally NOTHING that can be done to get them to heaven.
First, an unborn baby is absolutely gauranteed to not go to hell, so the danger an unborn faces is nothing compared to what us born humans face every single day. We can choose hell, an unborn baby cannot. Second, eternity in natural happiness is not something that sounds terrible to me, it is not the Beatific Vision in Heaven, yet it is happiness through eternity. Third, we can hope that God will take them into Heaven, or that God has created some post life way for the babies to choose Him and be baptized so that they can enter, yet God has never revealed that to us so we are not free to believe it…we can only hope, nothing more.

The simple bottom line on Limbo is this: There is an eternal consequence for not being baptized. If there is no consequence for not being baptized, then baptism becomes meaningless and so does original sin and so does the Church because it will have been wrong for 2,000 years.
 
+JMJ
There was also a “commission” in the 60’s that incorrectly stated that Catholics may use artificial birth control. That commission was dead wrong!

Be careful when dealing with “commissions” that claim to be Catholic. Until it comes from the Holy Father, it is NOT necessarily Catholic!
 
What other doctrines of the church will change in coming years? I really think re-marriage and denial of communion needs to be re-evaluated. It is too restrictive also IMO.

Is there a chance that the contraception doctirne could be modified in years to come. There are those rumors.
If one is granted an annullment, then that person is free to remarry. Otherwise, there is no chance that the Church will change it’s teachings on re-marriage without annullment and the use of artificial contraception.
 
I don’t know if this is the correct forum to post this. I apologize if it is.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc

Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries By Philip Pullella
Fri Apr 20, 2:21 PM ET

The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

In a long-awaited document, the Church’s International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the document, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised.”

The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century.

“The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation,” it said.

“There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”

The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

“NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM”

The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or “used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament.”

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning “border” or “edge,” was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.

“People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian,” the document said.

It said the study was made all the more pressing because “the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent.”

The commission’s conclusions had been widely expected.

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a defined truth of faith.”

In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church’s official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.
“’'does not negate Baptism” Sounds like a sugarcoated pill to me. If baptism could be “negated” what other way can it be negated if Limbo is not the result of an unbaptized soul?

What is the point of Baptism then? St. John the Baptist was beheaded and Baptism was patially the reason. Did Jesus just go “through the motions” in a meaningless ritual?

Is this a prelude to erasing the Sacrament of Baptism?

Original Sin must be removed by Baptism…We cannot be absolved from Original Sin through the confessional; we have to be baptized.

What happens to a soul that still has the stain of Original Sin? Adam and Eve were banished from Paradise because of Original Sin.
 
“’'does not negate Baptism” Sounds like a sugarcoated pill to me. If baptism could be “negated” what other way can it be negated if Limbo is not the result of an unbaptized soul?

What is the point of Baptism then? St. John the Baptist was beheaded and Baptism was patially the reason. Did Jesus just go “through the motions” in a meaningless ritual?

Is this a prelude to erasing the Sacrament of Baptism?

Original Sin must be removed by Baptism…We cannot be absolved from Original Sin through the confessional; we have to be baptized.

What happens to a soul that still has the stain of Original Sin? Adam and Eve were banished from Paradise because of Original Sin.
Well said! Bravo!
 
“’'does not negate Baptism” Sounds like a sugarcoated pill to me. If baptism could be “negated” what other way can it be negated if Limbo is not the result of an unbaptized soul?

What is the point of Baptism then? St. John the Baptist was beheaded and Baptism was patially the reason. Did Jesus just go “through the motions” in a meaningless ritual?

Is this a prelude to erasing the Sacrament of Baptism?

Original Sin must be removed by Baptism…We cannot be absolved from Original Sin through the confessional; we have to be baptized.

What happens to a soul that still has the stain of Original Sin? Adam and Eve were banished from Paradise because of Original Sin.
Adam and Eve were banished from “Paradise” because of their disobedience. This paradise was not in Heaven. They were not banished from Heaven, but rather from the Garden of Eden. Most Catholic theologians actually speculate that Adam and Eve went to Heaven, and in the East they even celebrate their feast day on December 24th. We are free to believe either way, but most Catholic theologians believe they are in Heaven. Remember, their disobedience wasn’t a sentence to Hell, they had the chance to repent of their ways and turn back to God.
 
To all,

Thanks for pressing me on this subject. I think I have placed my view well enough on this thread. I am tired of pounding the keyboard (for now), and will return some time in the future.

God Bless and thanks to all for the feisty talk. 🙂
Tom,

I think you have some very mistaken notions regarding this entire situation. It is official Catholic teaching that original sin exists, and that baptism is necessary for salvation. We are in agreement. But not believing in Limbo does not hamper or harm the truth of original sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. Let me explain here. First of all, it is absolutely vital to recognize that a faithful and practicing Catholic may believe in Limbo, and could also believe that unbaptised babies go Heaven. I myself do believe that they go to Heaven. While I cannot say this is certain because it hasn’t been infallibly defined, you cannot do the same for Limbo either. We must recognize the validity of our own beliefs. And saying that disregarding Limbo will lead to more abortions is downright nuts to be honest. Women who have abortions are not pondering the eternal fate of their baby. And even if unbaptised babies go to Heaven, it is not merciful to murder them. If true, you must logically be consistent and state that it would be merciful to murder all babies immediately after baptism. I don’t see that being recommended anywhere, do you? There can be good that derives out of evil. It is evil to murder someone. It is evil to murder a Catholic because of their religious beliefs, but there is a great good as a result that that martyrdom assures the person of eternal salvation. Yet that horrendous crime is still mortally sinful and awful.

Now, you are recognizing baptism by water but you are wholly leaving out baptism by blood and baptism by desire. These are valid baptisms as well. You have said previously that the Good Thief may be in Limbo and not Heaven because he wasn’t baptised. Untrue, he entered Heaven. Jesus told him, as Luke 23:43 states, “…Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” The Good Thief was baptised by desire when he asked Jesus to remember him when He entered into His Kingdom. Non-baptised adults (or anyone beyond age of reason) can enter into Heaven through baptism of desire. If they live good lives according to the moral precepts God has revealed, doing the best the the knowledge, as little as it may be, that they were given, they would be baptised by desire, because they have invisible ignorance of the necessity of baptism. I believe, as do many others, that baptism of desire could be applied to unbaptised babies too. Here are two ways or theories that I have recently read about…

1)at the very moment before death, they are supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him. The intricate details of this mysterious “baptism of desire” are up to debate and I think quite interesting, but personally I find that situation most plausible.

2)Another interesting theory that I think holds some weight could be that the prayers of saints or angels in Heaven for these babies could, through the unique allowance and power of God, enable a Baptism of Desire for the child.

Through whatever particular form or theory within Baptism of Desire for unbaptised babies, I strongly believe that as being children of God, in His great mercy and love God would welcome them into His heavenly kingdom. This belief is in line with the Catholic teaching on original sin and necessity of baptism for salvation. Original Sin is real and it exists. And it is true that all people must be baptised in order to enter into Heaven. But while we are quick to think of water baptism, we must also keep in mind baptism of blood and baptism of desire as truly valid baptisms, they are extraordinary means, but they are no less valid then water baptism. It is through the baptism of desire that I personally believe “unbaptised babies” are truly and validy baptised and enter into heavenly glory, enjoying eternal happiness with God their Father.

Here are two helpful links…

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-07/graebe.html

truecatholic.org/gb/gb-200003-feeneyerror.htm
 
It is through the baptism of desire that I personally believe “unbaptised babies” are truly and validy baptised and enter into heavenly glory, enjoying eternal happiness with God their Father.
Pope Pius XII, in his October 29, 1951, Allocution to Midwives, tells us that baptism of desire is impossible for infants. Please read the Pontiff’s address:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Are we to say that Pius XII didn’t know what he was talking about? :confused:

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Pope Pius XII, in his October 29, 1951, Allocution to Midwives, tells us that baptism of desire is impossible for infants. Please read the Pontiff’s address:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Are we to say that Pius XII didn’t know what he was talking about? :confused:

Keep and spread the Faith.
You are correct in the fact that Pope Piux XII wrote in that letter that he felt unbaptised babies were incapable of being “baptised by desire”, and that only those of the age of reason are capable of this. This is his opinion, and it was not an infallible statement. It appears he personally believed they go to Limbo. It also seems very likely that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI believe that unbaptised babies can go to Heaven, which would have to be through the means of “baptism of desire.” Again I stated how this could be so in my two possible theories in my last post. It appears that you are in agreement with the conclusion of Pope Pius XII and many past theologians, while I am in agreement with Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and many current Catholic theologians. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, there is no infallible, revealed teaching on the issue. I stand behind the belief that unbaptised babies go to Heaven and are actually validly baptised via “baptism of desire.” And if you did not do so already, I urge you to read the articles from the two links I’ve posted. One specifically goes into detail about the possibility of salvation for “unbaptised babies” via baptism of desire, and the other shows how the Church truly recognizes the validity of baptism of water, blood, and desire. It shows how there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but through invisible ignorance of the truth of the Church and the knowledge of the necessity of baptism for salvation, a person can be baptised via “baptism of desire”, therefore entering the Church in the most basis means and being saved.
 
You are correct in the fact that Pope Piux XII wrote in that letter that he felt unbaptised babies were incapable of being “baptised by desire”, and that only those of the age of reason are capable of this. This is his opinion, and it was not an infallible statement. It appears he personally believed they go to Limbo. It also seems very likely that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI believe that unbaptised babies can go to Heaven, which would have to be through the means of “baptism of desire.” Again I stated how this could be so in my two possible theories in my last post. It appears that you are in agreement with the conclusion of Pope Pius XII and many past theologians, while I am in agreement with Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and many current Catholic theologians. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, there is no infallible, revealed teaching on the issue. I stand behind the belief that unbaptised babies go to Heaven and are actually validly baptised via “baptism of desire.” And if you did not do so already, I urge you to read the articles from the two links I’ve posted. One specifically goes into detail about the possibility of salvation for “unbaptised babies” via baptism of desire, and the other shows how the Church truly recognizes the validity of baptism of water, blood, and desire. It shows how there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but through invisible ignorance of the truth of the Church and the knowledge of the necessity of baptism for salvation, a person can be baptised via “baptism of desire”, therefore entering the Church in the most basis means and being saved.
It is simply not true to say: “You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine; there is no infallible, revealed teaching on the issue.”

On the contrary, there *is *infallible, revealed teaching on this issue. This infallible, revealed teaching is the Catholic dogma that the souls of unbaptized infants, since they die with original sin only, are punished in the next life by being deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision.

The above Catholic dogma was taught by two general councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. The old Denzinger numbers (to be found in Deferrari’s translation) are 464 and 693. The new Denzinger numbers (DS numbers) are 858 and 1306.

Pre-Vatican II seminary manuals list the above thesis as a dogma. For example, even though he later contradicts himself and undermines the dogma by speaking of baptism of desire for infants, Ludwig Ott states on page 113 of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that the following is de fide:

"Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God."

Check other manuals of dogmatic theology used in seminaries all over the world before the present confusion in the human dimensions of the Church. Those manuals will tell you the same thing: the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision is a dogma.

No Catholic–not even the Holy Father–may contradict or undermine a dogma. On the fate of unbaptized infants, the only freedom of opinion that exists for Catholics has to do with the issue of whether unbaptized infants, in addition to being deprived of the beatific vision of heaven, also experience the pain of sense in hell. Catholics may agree with St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and St. Anselm in believing that unbaptized infants experience the pain of sense, or they may agree with St. Thomas Aquinas in believing that they experience only the loss of the beatific vision and that this loss is compatible with the natural happiness of limbo. I agree with St. Thomas.

In other words, as Catholics, we may believe either that those infants suffer in hell, or that they are happy in limbo. To use the words of *CCC *1261, we may “hope” that unbaptized infants will achieve “a way of salvation.” Salvation from what? From what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell. In this sense, limbo, in addition to being a kind of damnation, is also a kind of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Some thoughts. I think Adam and Eve are in Limbo. I believe all unbaptsed childre/aborts/ are in Limbo.

Also, when the Final Day arrives and the Final Judgment is applied, Christ will say to those on His right, “Come…” to those on His left, “Depart…” and there will be no middle place. as St. John, in the Apocalypse sees a “new Jerusalem descending from Heaved and adorned kike a bride for her husband…” (paraphrasing). There will be no Limbo ONLY Heaven or Hell. And Heaven will be on Earth after all things are settled.

The unbaptized may be, by the Great love of God, be baptized at that time. That could be the assignment of the many …to baptize the the throngs of the pre-born that were deprived of their earthly lives.

Adam and Eve will also experience the cleansing sacrament of baptism after all is said and done.

These are merely my thoughts and not theology, of course. But somehow a merciful God just might allow for some kind of similar application to those deprived.
 
It is simply not true to say: “You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine; there is no infallible, revealed teaching on the issue.”

On the contrary, there *is *infallible, revealed teaching on this issue. This infallible, revealed teaching is the Catholic dogma that the souls of unbaptized infants, since they die with original sin only, are punished in the next life by being deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision.

The above Catholic dogma was taught by two general councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. The old Denzinger numbers (to be found in Deferrari’s translation) are 464 and 693. The new Denzinger numbers (DS numbers) are 858 and 1306.

Pre-Vatican II seminary manuals list the above thesis as a dogma. For example, even though he later contradicts himself and undermines the dogma by speaking of baptism of desire for infants, Ludwig Ott states on page 113 of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that the following is de fide:

"Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God."

Check other manuals of dogmatic theology used in seminaries all over the world before the present confusion in the human dimensions of the Church. Those manuals will tell you the same thing: the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision is a dogma.

No Catholic–not even the Holy Father–may contradict or undermine a dogma. On the fate of unbaptized infants, the only freedom of opinion that exists for Catholics has to do with the issue of whether unbaptized infants, in addition to being deprived of the beatific vision of heaven, also experience the pain of sense in hell. Catholics may agree with St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and St. Anselm in believing that unbaptized infants experience the pain of sense, or they may agree with St. Thomas Aquinas in believing that they experience only the loss of the beatific vision and that this loss is compatible with the natural happiness of limbo. I agree with St. Thomas.

In other words, as Catholics, we may believe either that those infants suffer in hell, or that they are happy in limbo. To use the words of *CCC *1261, we may “hope” that unbaptized infants will achieve “a way of salvation.” Salvation from what? From what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell. In this sense, limbo, in addition to being a kind of damnation, is also a kind of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre-Vatican II from 1913 IIRC) says it’s not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception releases a soul from Hell. If so, then it would seem not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception admits an unbaptized infant (perhaps previously in limbo) to the beatific vision in heaven. Here’s the article:

“In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

I tihnk it would be in accord with the received Catholic tradition to affirm that but for God’s mercy unbaptized infants would all go to Hell. If someone says that an unbaptized infant “by default” as though through some kind of natural right goes to Heaven then that would be heterodox. There is no natural right to Heaven. Even the saints do not win heaven by a natural right but have a right to it supernaturally through grace.
 
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre-Vatican II from 1913 IIRC) says it’s not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception releases a soul from Hell. If so, then it would seem not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception admits an unbaptized infant (perhaps previously in limbo) to the beatific vision in heaven. Here’s the article:

“In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

I think it would be in accord with the received Catholic tradition to affirm that but for God’s mercy unbaptized infants would all go to Hell. If someone says that an unbaptized infant “by default” as though through some kind of natural right goes to Heaven then that would be heterodox. There is no natural right to Heaven. Even the saints do not win heaven by a natural right but have a right to it supernaturally through grace.
Just a second, please! 😦

Let’s look at the complete statement from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

***“In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of I Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted.” ***

Please pay special attention to that last sentence.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Adam and Eve were banished from “Paradise” because of their disobedience. This paradise was not in Heaven. They were not banished from Heaven, but rather from the Garden of Eden. Most Catholic theologians actually speculate that Adam and Eve went to Heaven, and in the East they even celebrate their feast day on December 24th. We are free to believe either way, but most Catholic theologians believe they are in Heaven. Remember, their disobedience wasn’t a sentence to Hell, they had the chance to repent of their ways and turn back to God.
No, their sentence was not Hell but they were warned by God that should they eat of the forbidden tree they would then know of sin and death…this was a profound warning.

The Serpent said, “No, you surely would not die…you will be as God…” Now, to me, that is not merely disobedience but it was also a sin of doubting God and the very same sin that Lucifer committed in wanting to “be God.”

Adam and Eve’s sin carried more baggage than just disobedience. It was also Pride in wanting to be an equal with God.

At what point did Adam & Eve have the opportunity to repent? Remember God promised a Redeemer after the Fall.

Adam, in choosing to follow Eve in partaking of the fruit, symbolically chose the carnal (Eve) over the spiritual (God). This is why we must master the flesh by our spiritual selves. The flesh is mortal…while the spirit is eternal.

As a sidenote: The lump in men’s throats called “The Adam’s Apple,” in folklore, is the first bite that Adam took and it traveled only to his throat before he realized he had sinned thereby causing men the inherited reminder of prefering the flesh (Eve) over the spirit.

Sin after the banishment abounded thereafter. Adam & Eve has two sons Cain and Able. The next sin to follow the Fall was ENVY followed by MURDER as Cain killed his brother Able.

Therefore, the consequences of Original Sin begot new and different sets of sins. Later, they were defined in the 10 Commandments. Later on God’s Son came into the world and refined the human condition and its proclivities with the BEATITUDES. These are the most beautiful, heart-rendering, words that touch the hearts of all mankind. They show how pleasing we could be to God and our neighbor by always keeping an eye on those words…were we inclined to live the Beatitudes there would never be wars, pestilence, or other calamities.

In my opinion, A&E are not in Heaven (yet) nor are they saints of the Church. They died with the stain of Original Sin and therefore, IMO, they are in Limbo until the Last Day.

All this is a kind of lesson we might realize that when we sin, the next sin is not far behind and successive sins grow more egregious and on and on.

Limbo exists—it makes a lot of sense too.
 
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre-Vatican II from 1913 IIRC) says it’s not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception releases a soul from Hell. If so, then it would seem not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception admits an unbaptized infant (perhaps previously in limbo) to the beatific vision in heaven. Here’s the article:

“In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

I tihnk it would be in accord with the received Catholic tradition to affirm that but for God’s mercy unbaptized infants would all go to Hell. If someone says that an unbaptized infant “by default” as though through some kind of natural right goes to Heaven then that would be heterodox. There is no natural right to Heaven. Even the saints do not win heaven by a natural right but have a right to it supernaturally through grace.
Hell is an absolute. A soul condemned to that place has turned from God and the Light to seek the darkness.

As for exceptions of releasing a soul from hell, IMO, it is a metaphorical use of the word “Hell.” I really do not believe it is the “Hell” we all know about…it is some other place.

The “releasing” in my mind is really PURGATORY and not “hell.”
 
FTS;2145997,

You cannot seriously think that unborn babies can receive a baptism of desire, do you?

There are two thoughts on the thief on the cross, he went to Heaven, he went to another place of eternal happiness (Paradise) that could also be called Limbo.

Perhaps you are right, maybe I am nuts as you so politely accuse me of being. However, Jesus (He is God) told us that baptism is an absolute, He said we must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus did not qualify His statement, He did not say that His mandate only applies to certain people. He said we must be baptized…period.

Now, if the Church came out and said that unborn babies go to Heaven, then baptism becomes meaningless and so does original sin, the logic of that is unavoidable. The Church will never say unborn babies go to Heaven, it can only say we are allowed to hope and pray for that they go to Heaven. The Church has not done away with Limbo either, and it will not do that, because if it does then it has to propose another theory to explain what happens to unborn babies, or it has to say that it is possible unborn babies do NOT go to Heaven. Can you not see the problem here? If the Church allows people to believe in their hearts that baptism is not required, then over time baptism will not be used.

Finally, if people are convinced that unborn babies go to Heaven, then abortion will be seen as a great mercy, and while you are correct that not very many woman think of that when they are in the clinic, you can be sure some do, and in the future the clinics will use the “unborn babies go straight to Heaven” as a defense of aborting babies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top