Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[Tom317]

Why do you keep claiming that “most Catholics” can’t grasp the subtleties of Church teaching that you and some of us can grasp? It just doesn’t seem charitable to me.

Because most Catholics did as they please, and if they knew the faith, they would act like that. They reject confession, 70% of them do not believe in the real presence, only 1/3 are ever confirmed, Mass attendance is at 24-28% rates, etc…that shows us we have a highly un-educated Catholic base that can easily fall prey to bad teachings. If they hear the Church has not declared that unborn babies go to Heaven, then they will feel less guilty about abortion and about contraception, etc…it is not uncharitable, it is factual.

 

[Walking_Home]

Because most Catholics did as they please, and if they knew the faith, they would act like that. They reject confession, 70% of them do not believe in the real presence, only 1/3 are ever confirmed, Mass attendance is at 24-28% rates, etc…that shows us we have a highly un-educated Catholic base that can easily fall prey to bad teachings. If they hear the Church has not declared that unborn babies go to Heaven, then they will feel less guilty about abortion and about contraception, etc…it is not uncharitable, it is factual.

---

I think you meant—now declared that unborn babies go to heaven.

I tend to agree with you. It would seem to make the decision to abort easier.

 

[Tom317]

---

I think you meant—now declared that unborn babies go to heaven.

I tend to agree with you. It would seem to make the decision to abort easier.

YEs, that is what I meant, thank you for the correction.

 

[rlg94086]

Because most Catholics did as they please, and if they knew the faith, they would act like that. They reject confession, 70% of them do not believe in the real presence, only 1/3 are ever confirmed, Mass attendance is at 24-28% rates, etc…that shows us we have a highly un-educated Catholic base that can easily fall prey to bad teachings. If they hear the Church has not declared that unborn babies go to Heaven, then they will feel less guilty about abortion and about contraception, etc…it is not uncharitable, it is factual.

1. If this is the case, then the concept of Limbo has done nothing to help the situation. Therefore, if the Church were to drop it, it would probably have zero effect IMO.
2. The faithful Cathlolics will still follow the Church in the same way, with or without the belief in Limbo.

 

[Tom317]

1. If this is the case, then the concept of Limbo has done nothing to help the situation. Therefore, if the Church were to drop it, it would probably have zero effect IMO.
2. The faithful Cathlolics will still follow the Church in the same way, with or without the belief in Limbo.

Not true. Catholics still feel baptism is important. If Limbo is dropped, and the false view that the Church has now declared that unborn babies go to Heaven, then great damage will have been done to the Body of Christ.

 

[Tom317]

1. If this is the case, then the concept of Limbo has done nothing to help the situation. Therefore, if the Church were to drop it, it would probably have zero effect IMO.
2. The faithful Cathlolics will still follow the Church in the same way, with or without the belief in Limbo.

This is really not about Limbo, it is about original sin and baptism. Limbo protects both, while deleting Limbo makes both meaningless.

Many (not all) Protestants wrongly believe that baptism plays no role in salvation, and that is exactly how many (not all) Catholics will feel if they are told that unborn babies go to Heaven. Catholics are not stupid. They will understand that if unpbaptized unborn babies go to Heaven, then so will any unbapitized child/baby under the age of seven. There is no escaping that, it makes baptism a sysmbolic action and it makes original sin look meaningless.

For two millenium Catholics have been taught that they must baptized their babies, not only because Christ demanded baptism, but because the Church recognized that Christ made it a condition of salvation, without qualification. Now, if the Church is falsely seen as having proclaimed unborn babies go to Heaven, then 2,000 years of teachings are tossed out.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I totally agree that one must be baptised to enter into Heaven. The Old Testament figures that died in a state of grace were “baptised by desire”, because they sought the truth and did God’s will, which would implicitly create this “baptism by desire.” It was my own theological speculation of such, and when I asked the Philosophy expert on the EWTN forum, he said I was correct.

I believe that these infants are validly baptised, via “baptism of desire.” I have previously described the three ways in which this is possible, and I can re-post them if necessary. I believe that this is the case, and as a faithful Catholic I am ALLOWED to do so. Just take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church to realize this. I never said Catholics must believe this, my entire point is that we can do so, just as you can strongly believe in Limbo if you so desire.

And why do you say that if the Church ever declared that unborn babies do go to Heaven, that the faith would be gone? Of course not. It is purely theological speculation as to whether I am correct or you are correct on this matter, and if the Church defined one of our views as correct, infallibly, one way or the other, we would then know who was right. It is that simple. We may be surprised by this truth, but we would have to have faith and just realize that we are fallible human beings and cannot totally understand nor comprehend the perfect justice of God. To say otherwise would be rejecting the infallible teaching authority that the Catholic Church does possess. But don’t worry, I doubt that there will be infallible, definitive teaching revealed on this subject. Who knows, but I personally doubt it. We will all find out someday I guess.

Also the Good Thief certainly went to Heaven and not Limbo. Jesus Christ told him that “today you will be with me in Paradise.” I’m pretty sure Jesus resides in Heaven, not Limbo. Why do you insist the Good Thief needs to be baptised by water? That is not Catholic teaching. Baptism by blood or desire is extraordinary means yes, but just as valid as baptism by water.

And to answer your last question, eternal happiness may sound nice but to be exempt of the presence of God is most certainly punishment, there is no denying it. Although Hell is probably physically painful, the chief characteristic is the separation from God! And I do not believe God would expect nor demand the impossible, and that he would decide to not give a child a chance to be with Him forever in Heaven. This is why I personally believe they are baptised by desire, and that their Heavenly Father welcomes them into His Kingdom with open arms.

FTS, please use paragraphs. I’ve taken the liberty of introducing them into your post above.

No Catholic is free to believe that unbaptized infants are baptized via baptism of desire. Summarizing two thousand years of Catholic tradition, Pope Pius XII stated on October 29, 1951, that baptism of desire is impossible for infants.

*CCC *1261 says nothing about baptism of desire. Instead, that section talks about a “hope” that unbaptized infants may achieve a “way of salvation.” In the light of Catholic tradition, this salvation should be understood as salvation from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (the “pain of sense”).

Furthermore, using her infallible teaching authority, the Catholic Church has committed herself to the position that the souls of unbaptized infants, since they die in the state of original sin only, are punished in some manner for this sin in the next world. This was taught at two general councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. Here are the words of the Council of Florence:

"But the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or only in original sin immediately descend into hell, but to be punished with unequal punishments."

Please note that the souls of unbaptized infants are in hell only in this sense: those souls, like the souls of those who die in unrepented mortal sin, are deprived of the beatific vision. This deprivation is the punishment for original sin.

Consequently, the fact that unbaptized infants are deprived of the beatific vision is not a mere personal opinion, but a Catholic dogma. It is de fide. But please don’t take my word for it. If you don’t believe me, check any approved manual of Catholic dogmatic theology published before the present confusion erupted in the Church’s human dimensions.

It is important to realize this: although the souls in limbo are deprived of the beatific vision, they are not totally separated from God. They are, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, united with God through natural knowledge and love, and that union, even though it is not as wonderful as the beatific vision, is not to be belittled.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Catholics are not stupid. They will understand that if unpbaptized unborn babies go to Heaven, then so will any unbapitized child/baby under the age of seven. There is no escaping that, it makes baptism a sysmbolic action and it makes original sin look meaningless.

Which non-stupid Catholics are you referring to? The ones who “know better” or the ones who already don’t follow Church teaching on contraception/abortion and don’t attend Mass regularly because they don’t even realize their own souls are in peril?

Tom317:

For two millenium Catholics have been taught that they must baptized their babies, not only because Christ demanded baptism, but because the Church recognized that Christ made it a condition of salvation, without qualification. Now, if the Church is falsely seen as having proclaimed unborn babies go to Heaven, then 2,000 years of teachings are tossed out.

If people “falsely see” this proclamation, it won’t be anything new. Lots of people misunderstand many of the Church teachings. It doesn’t mean the Church should dumb down the teachings. To me that is what teaching Limbo does. Perpetuating a theory of something that may or may not exist, is more harmful than teaching the Truth - that we don’t know and have to leave it to the mercy of God.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

If people “falsely see” this proclamation, it won’t be anything new. Lots of people misunderstand many of the Church teachings. It doesn’t mean the Church should dumb down the teachings. To me that is what teaching Limbo does. Perpetuating a theory of something that may or may not exist, is more harmful than teaching the Truth - that we don’t know and have to leave it to the mercy of God.

Just a second, please.

The damnation of unbaptized infants–i.e., the fact that they are deprived of the beatific vision–is not “a theory of something that may or may not exist.” On the contrary, it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

It is because of that official teaching that the Church has, over the centuries, gotten all bent out of shape on the subject of infant Baptism, urgently insisting that children be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tom317]

Which non-stupid Catholics are you referring to? The ones who “know better” or the ones who already don’t follow Church teaching on contraception/abortion and don’t attend Mass regularly because they don’t even realize their own souls are in peril?

People on this forum (in general) know the faith very well and realize what Christ said about baptism. However, many Catholics could not even name the seven sacraments, much less know the details behind Limbo. Limbo was always a theological theory that helped to explain the absolute need for baptism as a means of washing away original sin, and that without baptism the Beatific Vision is impossible. Catholics, even those who are well formed in theri faith, will be able to connect the dots. They will intuitively realize that if unborn babies go to Heaven, then so do born babies and young children, which makes the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church about baptism obsolete.

If people “falsely see” this proclamation, it won’t be anything new. Lots of people misunderstand many of the Church teachings. It doesn’t mean the Church should dumb down the teachings. To me that is what teaching Limbo does. Perpetuating a theory of something that may or may not exist, is more harmful than teaching the Truth - that we don’t know and have to leave it to the mercy of God.

The Church, if you read the document, still upholds Limbo as a valid theory. It is my contention that this topic should never have been addressed by the Church because the Church admits it does not know what happens to unborn babies who die. The fact that this has been opened for study by the Church, and that a statement has been made, now leads the Catholic universe of dissenters to declare that unborn babies go to Heaven (search the net, it is already being claimed). In other words, the Church has, imo, unwittingly hurt the Body of Christ by opening a topic that they have no way to answer. There was no progress to be made, only damage and damage has already been done. The Church cannot say something it does not know, so it should not have publicly released a statement about a topic to which it just does not know how to answer.

The Church, when it speaks infallibly, is guided by the Holy Spirit and will not make an error when it speaks as such. However, the Church is comprised of humans who are quite fallible and this entire study was a huge mistake. The only remedy is for the Holy Father to make a strong statement to help renew the knowledge that it is horribly dangerous to assume unborn babies go to Heaven–the Church, and we, cannot say that, we can only hope and that hope was already expressed in the Catechism.

This statement and the study only serves to do damage, it changes nothing, but millions have already perceived that it has changed a lot of Church teachings. One would have hoped that with the perversion of Vatican II, the Church would have learned to be more careful…sadly regarding this issue the Church was not careful at all…imho.

Sometimes it is better to let things alone.

 

[rlg94086]

People on this forum (in general) know the faith very well and realize what Christ said about baptism. However, many Catholics could not even name the seven sacraments, much less know the details behind Limbo. Limbo was always a theological theory that helped to explain the absolute need for baptism as a means of washing away original sin, and that without baptism the Beatific Vision is impossible. Catholics, even those who are well formed in theri faith, will be able to connect the dots. They will intuitively realize that if unborn babies go to Heaven, then so do born babies and young children, which makes the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church about baptism obsolete.

The problem with your logic is that it is based on two poorly stated premises.

1. Limbo is not required (even if it “helps” as you describe it) to explain the absolute need for baptism. It is not taught in the Eastern Orthodox church and they have remained steadfast in the baptism of babies.
2. You keep saying that people will intuitively realize that “if unborn babies go to Heaven…” No one has stated that unborn babies go to Heaven.

The Church, if you read the document, still upholds Limbo as a valid theory.

I have no problem with Catholics who feel the need to believe in Limbo.

It is my contention that this topic should never have been addressed by the Church because the Church admits it does not know what happens to unborn babies who die. The fact that this has been opened for study by the Church, and that a statement has been made, now leads the Catholic universe of dissenters to declare that unborn babies go to Heaven (search the net, it is already being claimed). In other words, the Church has, imo, unwittingly hurt the Body of Christ by opening a topic that they have no way to answer. There was no progress to be made, only damage and damage has already been done. The Church cannot say something it does not know, so it should not have publicly released a statement about a topic to which it just does not know how to answer.

Okay fine. We disagree, but you are free to have that opinion of course.

The Church, when it speaks infallibly, is guided by the Holy Spirit and will not make an error when it speaks as such. However, the Church is comprised of humans who are quite fallible and this entire study was a huge mistake. ***The only remedy is for the Holy Father to make a strong statement to help renew the knowledge that it is horribly dangerous to assume unborn babies go to Heaven–the Church, and we, cannot say that, we can only hope and that hope was already expressed in the Catechism. ***

I agree with you 100% here. That would be helpful.

This statement and the study only serves to do damage, it changes nothing, but millions have already perceived that it has changed a lot of Church teachings. One would have hoped that with the perversion of Vatican II, the Church would have learned to be more careful…sadly regarding this issue the Church was not careful at all…imho.

Sometimes it is better to let things alone.

We disagree here. I don’t think the Church should stop studying and considering theological questions.

 

[Tom317]

The problem with your logic is that it is based on two poorly stated premises.

1. Limbo is not required (even if it “helps” as you describe it) to explain the absolute need for baptism. It is not taught in the Eastern Orthodox church and they have remained steadfast in the baptism of babies.
2. You keep saying that people will intuitively realize that “if unborn babies go to Heaven…” No one has stated that unborn babies go to Heaven.

Wrong! Search the net, I have already seen articles stating the Church has changed it doctrines, that unborn babies now go to Heaven, that the Church “has changed again,” etc., and on-and-on. People on these forums have already said they “believe” that unborn babies go to Heaven and that they are glad the Church got rid of Limbo. First, no-one is free to believe unborn babies go to Heaven because even the Church admits we just don’t know. Second, the Church has not gotten rid of Limbo, it simply studied the issue and said there is reason to hope—well that is nothing new, there has always been reason to hope–hope is NOT belief.

You cannot compare the East to the West, for we are totally different in how we talk about and propogate matters of faith. We have a Pope and a Magisterium, they do not. Catholics who read statements from any high ranking person in Rome, automatically think it is of great importance. The statement we are discussing changes nothing, but a very large number of Catholics and non-Catholics think it does…why do you suppose that is? It is because people are always looking for the easy way.

We disagree here. I don’t think the Church should stop studying and considering theological questions.

Niether do I, yet I do feel strongly that the Church should not make public statements about issues that it cannot resolve. We live in a time during which those statements will cause great damage. In other words, if the Church has nothing new or definitive to say, then it should not say anything. In this case, the Church has nothing new to add, it is all the same as it has been, so releasing a statement did nothing but harm, the Church has caused more confusion, not less.

 

[rlg94086]

Wrong! Search the net, I have already seen articles stating the Church has changed it doctrines, that unborn babies now go to Heaven, that the Church “has changed again,” etc., and on-and-on. People on these forums have already said they “believe” that unborn babies go to Heaven and that they are glad the Church got rid of Limbo. First, no-one is free to believe unborn babies go to Heaven because even the Church admits we just don’t know. Second, the Church has not gotten rid of Limbo, it simply studied the issue and said there is reason to hope—well that is nothing new, there has always been reason to hope–hope is NOT belief.

Calm down Tom. Do you have any evidence that the people who are writing these articles are faithful Catholics who generally follow Church teachings? If not, then “there is nothing new under the sun.” I don’t feel the Church should change her teachings based on public perception.

You cannot compare the East to the West, for we are totally different in how we talk about and propogate matters of faith. We have a Pope and a Magisterium, they do not. Catholics who read statements from any high ranking person in Rome, automatically think it is of great importance. The statement we are discussing changes nothing, but a very large number of Catholics and non-Catholics think it does…why do you suppose that is? It is because people are always looking for the easy way.

You are making the East sound like the place to be, because you infer that Catholics require more guidance than the Orthodox.

 

[Tom317]

Calm down Tom.

Please do not stoop to insults, I am perfectly calm.

Do you have any evidence that the people who are writing these articles are faithful Catholics who generally follow Church teachings? If not, then “there is nothing new under the sun.” I don’t feel the Church should change her teachings based on public perception.

When did I say the Church should change its teachings? I feel the exact opposite is going on, the Church is giving the false impression that it has changed its teachings, when in fact it has not. Limbo is still a valid theory, hope for the unborn is still a valid hope, baptism remains an absolute for salvation and original sin is still something that every sould has when it is created. Nothing HAS changed in the faith and that is presicely the point. Vatican II changed no dogmas or doctrines, it added nothing to the deposit of faith, yet millions have perverted that council into what they want it to say, and the Church has really done next to nothing to stop that perversion of a very holy council. IMO, the same is beginning to happen with baptism and original sin and the statement we are discussing will do nothing but add to that problem. Catholics are humans and they often want the easy way out, just as many Protestants sadly believe that once a person is saved, they are always saved. The problem I have is that the Church should never have released a public statement on Limbo, or on anything to do with unborn babies, because it has known for centuries that God has not revealed what He does with those babies. The Church opened the proverbial can of worms, and there is no going back now.

The Church’s task is to help lead all souls to Christ and Heaven, not to push them away.

People writing those articles cannot be faithful Catholics, the two do not go together and that is exactly the point.

You are making the East sound like the place to be, because you infer that Catholics require more guidance than the Orthodox.

No, the exact opposite actually. I would not want to worship in the east because they do not have the Magisterium or the Chair of Peter, which was given by Christ and was something the east dumped (imo out of pride and ego).

 

[Tom317]

It took me seconds to find these, there are tons more (all of these headlines are just flat wrong):

**Unbaptized babies go to heaven: Changing a long-standing tenet, pope approves report to change ‘limbo’ **
heraldextra.com/content/view/218850/

Pope tries to win hearts and minds by saving souls of unbaptised babies
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article659379.ece

The Vatican Eliminates Limbo
scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/04/the_vatican_eliminates_limbo.php?utm_source=mostemailed&utm_medium=link

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I totally agree that one must be baptised to enter into Heaven. The Old Testament figures that died in a state of grace were “baptised by desire”, because they sought the truth and did God’s will, which would implicitly create this “baptism by desire.” It was my own theological speculation of such, and when I asked the Philosophy expert on the EWTN forum, he said I was correct. I believe that these infants are validly baptised, via “baptism of desire.” I have previously described the three ways in which this is possible, and I can re-post them if necessary. I believe that this is the case, and as a faithful Catholic I am ALLOWED to do so. Just take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church to realize this. I never said Catholics must believe this, my entire point is that we can do so, just as you can strongly believe in Limbo if you so desire. And why do you say that if the Church ever declared that unborn babies do go to Heaven, that the faith would be gone? Of course not. It is purely theological speculation as to whether I am correct or you are correct on this matter, and if the Church defined one of our views as correct, infallibly, one way or the other, we would then know who was right. It is that simple. We may be surprised by this truth, but we would have to have faith and just realize that we are fallible human beings and cannot totally understand nor comprehend the perfect justice of God. To say otherwise would be rejecting the infallible teaching authority that the Catholic Church does possess. But don’t worry, I doubt that there will be infallible, definitive teaching revealed on this subject. Who knows, but I personally doubt it. We will all find out someday I guess. Also the Good Thief certainly went to Heaven and not Limbo. Jesus Christ told him that “today you will be with me in Paradise.” I’m pretty sure Jesus resides in Heaven, not Limbo. Why do you insist the Good Thief needs to be baptised by water? That is not Catholic teaching. Baptism by blood or desire is extraordinary means yes, but just as valid as baptism by water. And to answer your last question, eternal happiness may sound nice but to be exempt of the presence of God is most certainly punishment, there is no denying it. Although Hell is probably physically painful, the chief characteristic is the separation from God! And I do not believe God would expect nor demand the impossible, and that he would decide to not give a child a chance to be with Him forever in Heaven. This is why I personally believe they are baptised by desire, and that their Heavenly Father welcomes them into His Kingdom with open arms.

The very words of the Good Thief on the c\his cross addressing jesus as, “Lord, remember me when You enter your kingdom…” These words imply A LOT !!

It implies that, Lord" the GT knew Jesus was divine and he hoped and believed in the hereafter. To my mind Dismas, the Good Thief, was most probably a follower of Jesus despite his sinful past of thievery.

We can take that one step further, that is, if he was a follwer then he most certainly was baptized. Baptism was broadly practiced in Judea and was emphasized as as coincidental with redemption by Jesus Himself when He directed His apostles to g…"go and preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them, “In the name of the father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

The Good Thief knew well who Jesus was and we cannot say with absolute assurity that he was NOT baptized. I think he was.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

A question to anti-limbo people: how can you, as Catholics, continue to advocate baptism of desire as a means for unbaptized infants to atttain the beatific vision? Doesn’t the Council of Florence assure us that, in the case of newborns who face the danger of death, ***“help cannot be brought to them by any remedy except through the sacrament of Baptism” ***(old Denzinger number 712; new Denzinger number 1349)?

How can a Catholic maintain that Christ permitted the Council of Florence to misinform the entire Church in this manner?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Please do not stoop to insults, I am perfectly calm.

LOL Tom. “Calm down” isn’t an insult…don’t be so sensitive.

You started your post with “Wrong!” and used “NOT.” The exclamation to start off your post and the yelling of the word “not” led me to think you were a little overexcited. Sorry if I misread the emotion of your post.

 

[rlg94086]

When did I say the Church should change its teachings? I feel the exact opposite is going on, the Church is giving the false impression that it has changed its teachings, when in fact it has not. Limbo is still a valid theory, hope for the unborn is still a valid hope, baptism remains an absolute for salvation and original sin is still something that every sould has when it is created. Nothing HAS changed in the faith and that is presicely the point. Vatican II changed no dogmas or doctrines, it added nothing to the deposit of faith, yet millions have perverted that council into what they want it to say, and the Church has really done next to nothing to stop that perversion of a very holy council. IMO, the same is beginning to happen with baptism and original sin and the statement we are discussing will do nothing but add to that problem. Catholics are humans and they often want the easy way out, just as many Protestants sadly believe that once a person is saved, they are always saved. The problem I have is that the Church should never have released a public statement on Limbo, or on anything to do with unborn babies, because it has known for centuries that God has not revealed what He does with those babies. The Church opened the proverbial can of worms, and there is no going back now.

Okay. First of all, teaching is not the same as Dogma and Doctrine. For example, Limbo is a teaching in the Church, but it is not *de fide. *Secondly, the Church isn’t giving a false impression, people are misinterpreting.

The Church’s task is to help lead all souls to Christ and Heaven, not to push them away.

True, but some things are “hard sayings.” People get pushed away all the time over issues like Birth Control and Divorce, for examle. We don’t call on the Church to be careful of her wording for fear of pushing people away.

Tom317:

People writing those articles cannot be faithful Catholics, the two do not go together and that is exactly the point.

Wait. That is exactly my point, if you are talking about the articles misinterpreting the words of the Commission. Faithful Catholics will continue to understand the need for Baptism. Catholics who deny Church teaching will continually need instruction and prayers.

Tom317:

No, the exact opposite actually. I would not want to worship in the east because they do not have the Magisterium or the Chair of Peter, which was given by Christ and was something the east dumped (imo out of pride and ego).

But, your argument is that belief in Limbo is required in order for Baptism to be considered important. Baptism in the East is considered very important even though they don’t believe in Limbo, so your argument is faulty. For some reason our Orthodox brothers and sisters are able to understand something that us Catholics are all of a sudden going to have a crisis over because of Limbo being questioned. I think your concern is overblown.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Okay. First of all, teaching is not the same as Dogma and Doctrine. For example, Limbo is a teaching in the Church, but it is not de fide.

Something of immense importance is being repeatedly circumvented in this discussion. Even though limbo is not de fide, the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision because of original sin IS de fide.

As a Catholic, you may choose to reject St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching on the existence of natural happiness in limbo. You may, if you wish, agree instead with St. Augustine by saying that unbaptized infants, in addition to being deprived of the beatific vision, also suffer in hell. Nonetheless, if you wish to be a solid Catholic, you may ***NOT ***deny that unbaptized infants are excluded from the beatific vision, for this exclusion is a Catholic dogma.

Again, two general councils (Lyons II and Florence) taught that those who die in original sin only descend into hell for some kind of punishment. Pope Innocent III told us that this punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision.

Anti-limbo people should cease evading these points.

Keep and spread the Faith.