Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[japhy]

The reality is that whatever the fate of unbaptized infants, it is out of our control. What we can control is baptizing our babies as soon as possible, as the Church teaches. We can only pray and hope for those who die before it can be done.

Yes, it is out of our control: there’s absolutely nothing God has granted us to do for them. It’s out of everyone’s control but God’s, which is why our prayers for those who die before they can be baptized and our hope for God’s mercy to them are worthwhile.

 

[FTS]

I see a huge problem here.

The Council of Florence affirmed the de fide teaching that the souls of those who die in original sin only descend immediately into hell for some kind of punishment. Pope Innocent III tells us that this punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision.

If we say that this punishment does *not *ensue for unbaptized infants, because their original sin is taken away by baptism of desire, then we are turning Florence’s dogma into nonsense, and transforming an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church into the Mad Hatter’s tea party.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Not so. The fact that these babies could be validly baptised by desire doesn’t conflict with the Council of Florence’s teaching. This teaching tells us that nobody can go to Heaven with Original Sin, and that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, there are three modes of baptism…water, blood, and desire, all of which would wipe away Original Sin and put a person in a state of sanctifying grace. Therefore, if these babies are baptised by desire their Original Sin is wiped away and they go to Heaven.

 

[FTS]

Could you give the CONTINUITY of the current 2007 that babies go to heaven without baptism, through-out Catholic tradition?
(from the last apostle to today)

If it can’t be shown then it is less than a logical speculation it is hoping against what has been revealed because I simply don’t like it.

No, I cannot give you continuity throughout Church history, showing that everyone has believed that these babies can be baptised by desire and enter Heaven. This is not so. But that doesn’t mean it is untrue. We are FREE to differ in opinion here, there is no revelation from God on the manner. But guess what else? There also is no continuity for Limbo, which is NOT an infallible doctrine. For example, St. Augustine and others taught that they suffered in Hell, while St. Thomas Aquinas and others taught that they don’t suffer in Limbo, a place of natural happiness. Currently, Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and other Catholic theologians lean towards belief that these individuals can enter into Heaven. Also, look at the creationism/theistic evolution debate. Early on, many in the Church leaned towards creationism, while currently many believe in theistic evolution. However, we as Catholics are free to believe in either one. So, in conclusion, believing in the salvation of these persons is NOT against revelation. There is no specific revelation on the matter, and just as you are free to believe they go to Limbo, I am free to believe that they are baptised by desire and enter into Heaven.

 

[FTS]

There can be more than just being cleansed from original sin that is necessary to enter heaven.

As strange as it may sound, no-one was ever saved in the old testement.

Yes, no one did or could enter heaven until Jesus opened the gates of heaven and lead them all into heaven. (He desended into hell) Those in the limbo of the Fathers could not enter heaven even though they were all in sanctifying grace, so there can be more than just being in sanctifying grace to enter heaven.

Your comments are opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic Church, what a person needs to enter into Heaven is to be in a state of grace. There are not additional requirements. (although this requirement is a mighty big one which entails many factors, as we will be judged in our own unique circumstances for what we have done and failed to do) Although it may not be immediate (Old Testament figures in Sheol and people in Purgatory), if you die in a state of grace you are in God’s friendship and will enter into Heaven.

 

[shadow_fire]

Excellent now they just need to teach that homosexuals are good and don’t need to live a sexless life for there whole life.

 

[FTS]

Refuse to believe all you want. Original Sin is a REALITY and it has to be removed. Limbo will go on—with—or without you!

This is your personal opinion, not representing the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. You are free to hold it, but not free to believe it is infallible and criticize others who disagree with it and believe in the salvation of these individuals. You need to recognize that we can do so and remain faithful Catholics.

 

[FTS]

John the Baptist was born without original sin. Besides Our Lord and our Lady the Church celebrates only one other birthday, his.

Matthew 11:11 “Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

But here our Lord says that the least in the kingdom of God is greater than him. The way we enter the kindom of God is through water baptism. Because only water baptism engraphs us into Christ and the Mystical body and marks our soul to that effect. One can not recieve communion with only the other two “baptisms”, because one is not a member of the Church till recieving baptism.

It is true that “baptism” of desire removes original sin but it is clear in all these cases that baptism was also necessary. Curious isn it?

---

PS: Finally if your theory is that they recieve desire then they have a choice and they could reject God and if they do, they will end up in real hell fire not just limbo. You’ve created another problem not solved one.

You are mistaken. You mis-interpret Matthew 11:11. Jesus was not saying that the least in Heaven was greater than John because they are baptised by water and he is only baptised by desire. It was because as great as St. John the Baptist was, to be in the Kingdom of Heaven is so great a privilege that the least who has it is greater than any person on earth. It is very erroneous to believe that somehow baptism by blood or desire is less of a baptism that by water. All three modes are equally valid, and all wipe away Original Sin and place sanctifying grace in the soul.

However, God desires His people to be baptised by water if possible. From the scriptural passages you have pointed out, this is clear. Just like when Jesus calls His disciples to go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, if not possible, or through invisible ignorance, a non-water baptised person can be validly baptised via blood or desire. Yes, a person who desires baptism is validly baptised by desire before the water baptism, but God of course stills calls this person to be baptised by water, as is the fullest expression and intention of baptism. If a person had a scheduled baptism on Saturday and died Friday night, they would be validly baptised by desire. Similarly, God calls His people to go to the Sacrament of Confession, but a person can also be forgiven of sins via perfect contrition. If a person planned on going to Confession Saturday and died Friday night, having perfect contrition, they would be forgiven and in a state of grace. While water baptism and confession are sacraments and normal means, baptism by blood or desire and having perfect contrition are supernatural means by which God imparts grace to us. Baptism by water, blood, or desire are ALL valid baptisms.

And finally, yes, if the 1st theory within baptism of desire for infants is accurate, then with this supernaturally infused free will and use of reason the person could choose to deny or to accept God. But they key is they would have the opportunity to do so, just as you and I do. So this wouldn’t be a problem as you said, but rather a great solution which would showcase the great mercy and love of God. However, if the 2nd or 3rd theories are correct, they would be automatically granted baptism of desire and enter into Heaven. (1st was prayers of angels or saints supernaturally grant baptism of desire/2nd was having natural, built-in desire for God their Creator from moment of conception, being innocent and not rejecting Him since faculty of reason isn’t present, supernaturally immediately before death this built-in desire would create a baptism of desire) I am not sure which of the three theories sounds most plausible, but I believe that one of them are correct, and that these individuals either have the opportunity to or for sure do go to Heaven.

 

[FTS]

Im sorry if I miss understood you but I was using "you " not in a personal sense. And I thought you accepted that God gave them an opportunity to desire Him. ( Which is the most popular theory out there) I appologize for assuming you were proposing this theory.

I was trying to show that there is a difference in this this life between “baptism” of desire and water and that God went to a lot of trouble to make it clear in this life that baptism is necessary.
Maybe He ment it. And as you say:"Now, since nothing has been revealed " But it has been revealed that babies need baptism

The theory that he frees babies from original sin in some way aside from baptism, would mean that God and the Church has decieved us for centuries that baptism is necessary for babies.

Since there is no traditon that babies go to heaven and on the other hand we have very very strong traditional teaching that it is not possible for babies to go to heaven. I side on that of tradition not novelty.

Yes, Jesus desires us to be baptised by water, but He doesn’t expect the impossible, nor hold those guilty who are truly invisibly ignorant of the necessity of baptism. Baptism by blood or desire are extraordinary means yes, but they are valid. You must admit I am being intellectually consistent. I recognize that the Church teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. And I believe that these individuals (people below age of reason or incapable of true reason and free will, such as mentally retarded) are baptised by desire. This is acceptable opinion for a faithful Catholic. So is the belief in Limbo. We are free to disagree. It is wholly inaccurate to claim you side on tradition and not novelty. Our opinions on the matter are equally acceptable. And I remind you that a certain man believes in the salvation of these individuals. His name is Pope Benedict XVI. In 1985, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of his personal belief, rejecting Limbo.

 

[FTS]

“…unless a man be born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven…” “Born again” quite clearly means to be baptized. Also, a child in the womb is NOT born until it is born. The child has to be born to qualify for baptism. Seems simple enough for me.

Jesus isn’t talking about being physically born from the womb when He says “one must be born of water and the Spirit” to enter Heaven. He is referring to baptism. And the Catholic Church teaches us that baptism has three modes. The first, the normal means, which is water baptism. The second and third, extraordinary means, are baptism by blood and desire.

 

[FTS]

“…Many are called - few are chosen…”.​

That is very weak reasoning - if someone dies in unrepented mortal sin, is that a reason to hope they will be saved ? To ask the question is to answer it.​

As well as those in all succeeding centuries ## 1. By parity of reasoning, that is an argument for ordaining women, denying the existence of Hell, & generally throwing out anything that does not commend itself to the ideas of the non-Christian world. It’s a suicidal idea.​

2.Our duty is to conform our thinking to the Gospel, all of it, nasty bits as well as nice, to be inwardly renewed by it - not to dilute it so Christ-deniers can find it acceptable. ## Maybe he’s forgetting his own “Note” accompanying Ad Tuendam Fidem - Pius VI rebuked the Jansenists in 1794 for calling Limbo a “Pelagian fable” in 1786. It was Catholic teaching then - to say that it was not defined is true: & totally beside the point; it’s a red herring.

Of course, if someone dies with unrepentant mortal sin, they would go to Hell. But in this unique situation, we are free to believe that these infants go to Limbo or to Heaven. We are free to decide and have our personal opinions.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think that someone believing God wouldn’t ban someone from Heaven who committed no personal sin is the same thing as someone believing in women’s ordination nor denying the existence of Hell. Remember, if these infants are baptised by desire they would enter into Heaven.

Preaching the Gospel doesn’t mean preaching Limbo. It is NOT an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[FTS]

Surely this misunderstands what salvation is. Salvation is not a right but a privilege. It belongs not to our earthly natures, but to the new nature we take on as a gift of Grace at baptism.

And if these infants are baptised by desire, their Original Sin is wiped away and they possess sanctifying grace, and enter into Heaven.

 

[FTS]

Only Steve O’Brien has shown a worthwhile argument against the clear statements of the Catechism, and that was on the nature of salvation (whether it means saving one from hell or sending one to heaven).
QUOTE]

This is a mistaken position. The Catechism is clearly talking about the possibility of eternal salvation in Heaven for these babies, not merely “salvation via being saved from Hell.” Believing in Limbo means you don’t think that these persons will undergo suffering in Hell, even though technically Limbo would have to be a part of Limbo. So this wouldn’t be any big news if that is all that was mean in the Catechism. The eternal salvation mentioned for these infants is Heaven. This is obvious. Also, Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope JPII were both involved in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and both leaned towards rejecting Limbo and believing in the salvation of these infants. This salvation isn’t merely avoiding Hell, it means the entrance into Heavenly glory. There is no doubt about it, ask any Catholic apologist and they will clearly tell you that what is referred to in the Catechism means hoping for their eternal salvation in Heaven.

 

[FTS]

and from the1302 papal bull Unam Sanctam which states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII).

Now this says that one needs to be subject to the Pope to be saved which means there maybe other things that are necessary besides sanctifying grace. It is a possibility.

A Papal Bull is not infallible, and besides, that statement could be interpreted in a correct manner, just as there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. However, through invisible ignorance, any person who is baptised (by water, blood, or desire), dying in a state of grace, will enter into Heaven. If you die in a state of grace you’ve been baptised, and by this you are, in the most basic means, a member of the Catholic Church and are subject to the Roman Pontiff, the Pope, even if you don’t realize it through invisible ignorance. There most likely will be many non-Christians who die in a state of grace and enter Heaven, to find out the truth of Christianity and Catholicism in the afterlife.

 

[FTS]

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

To tell you the truth I don’t understand how we only know that baptism is necessary for salvation
and that it may not always be necessary.

I have no theory or know of one that can reconcile these two seemingly contrary positions. I have to submit my understanding to the Church on this one. The CCC seems to say that desire and blood are the same but there needs to be a lot of theological discussion on how to reconcile that.

There is a tradition for the desire and blood position and a tradition that seems to opposes it . Like the debate on the Immaculate Conception, I have to accept on faith the prevalent understanding, which is in the CCC. Until, if ever, it is cleared-up by a solemn definition.
Though from what I have read the tradition that says that desire as enough for salvation was always limited to only catechumens.

1249 Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity."48 "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."49

I have to make an act of Faith, and that God will clear this up and/or I may never understand it.

I don’t understand what is hard to clear up. Water baptism is ordinary means, but baptism by blood or desire are extraordinary means that are equally valid. Similarly, the sacrament of Confession is ordinary means for forgiveness of sins, but perfect contrition is extraordinary means.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but any one of the three modes are effective and valid. Therefore, if an infant is baptised by desire he or she is validly baptised. The Catechism doesn’t go into detail about how we can hope for the salvation of infants, just that we can and entrust them to God’s mercy. As an extension of the Catechism’s statement, to delve into further detail, I think we can hope and believe for their eternal salvation via baptism of desire.

Again, these theories showcase how infants could be baptised by desire…

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.
2. 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.
3. All people have a built-in desire for God. Some of us pursue this and others don’t, through their own free will. Since babies are innocent and have not chosen to reject God but rather desire God, immediately preceding death this built-in desire for God that all humans have from the moment of conception would create a valid baptism of desire.

 

[Rach620]

I’m still subscribed to this thread, and while I stopped reading, I thought I’d post this. An interview with Sr. Sara Butler of the ITC on the declaration…from ZENIT:

Notion of Limbo Isn’t Closed, Expert Says
Adds It’s a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended

ROME, MAY 3, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The theory of limbo is not ruled out, says a member of the International Theological Commission, commenting on a study from the panel.

Sister Sara Butler, a Missionary Servant of the Most Blessed Trinity, has served on the commission since 2004. The commission is an advisory body comprised of 30 theologians chosen by the Pope. Its documents are not considered official expressions of the magisterium, but the commission does help the Holy See to examine important doctrinal issues.

On April 20, the commission released a document, commissioned under Pope John Paul II, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” Benedict XVI approved it for publication.

In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, Sister Butler, who teaches dogmatic theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, New York, says “the report concludes that limbo remains a ‘possible theological opinion.’ Anyone who wants to defend it is free to do so. This document, however, tries to give a theological rationale for hoping that unbaptized infants may be saved.”

“The [International Theological Commission] wants to give more weight to God’s universal salvific will and to solidarity in Christ than to the necessity of baptism, which is not absolute but is qualified in certain ways,” she said.

Principles of faith

Sister Butler cited No. 41 of the document: “**esides the theory of limbo – which remains a possible theological option – there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of faith outlined in Scripture.”

She added: “The commission is trying to say what the Catechism of the Catholic Church – Nos. 1260, 1261, 1283 – has already said: that we have a right to hope that God will find a way to offer the grace of Christ to infants who have no opportunity for making a personal choice with regard to their salvation.”

The document “is trying to provide a theological rationale for what has already been proposed in several magisterial documents since the council,” Sister Butler said. "Generally, the [commission] documents offer a point of reference for bishops and theology professors in seminaries, for example, to offer an explanation for the development of doctrine.

"But I doubt whether this would lead to a further statement from the magisterium**, because it says no more than what has already been said in the [Catechism], in the funeral rites for infants who have died without baptism in the 1970 Roman Missal, and in ‘Pastoralis Actio’ – the document from 1980 from the [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] on the baptism of infants.

“It says nothing new; it is simply trying to make explicit the theological grounding for this hope. ‘Gaudium et Spes,’ 22, and ‘Lumen Gentium,’ 14 and 16, at the Second Vatican Council, opened the way for this development. Actually, some wanted the teaching on limbo formally defined at the council, but the topic was excluded from the agenda.”

 

[Rach620]

…continued:

Extra-sacramental gift

The theological commission’s document, she said, “just indicates that given our understanding of God’s mercy and the plan of salvation which includes Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Church, we dare to hope that these infants will be saved by some extra-sacramental gift of Christ.”

“We do not know what the destiny of these children is,” she said, “but we have grounds for hope.”

Sister Butler spoke of the plight of aborted babies.

“I’m sure we never considered suggesting that these infants be declared martyrs,” she said. “We were, of course, aware that in many places Catholics remember the unborn babies who have been aborted on the feast of the Holy Innocents. We didn’t propose a solution.”

She added: "In this particular instance, death is the way these children might be united with Christ: Through the violent circumstances of their deaths, they may be united to his paschal mystery.

"The Council explicitly taught that God provides a way of salvation for those who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel and therefore have no access to sacramental baptism.

“The [commission] report extends the logic of this teaching to infants. We suggest that the Holy Spirit offers to them, in a way known to God, the possibility of being made partakers in the paschal mystery.”

Sister Butler nevertheless warned that “the ordinary means of salvation is baptism, and that infants should be baptized; Catholic parents have a serious obligation.”

“God is not bound to the sacraments,” she said, “and therefore, just as we understand there are other possible ways for adults who are in invincible ignorance of the Gospel to achieve salvation, so we presume there are other ways, known to God, open to infants who unfortunately die without baptism.”

 

[zootjeff]

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.

It’s really cool that they can get rid of a place by getting a bunch of clergy in a room and voting on it. I wish they would do the same for Hell and get rid of it.

 

[Genesis315]

I wish everyone would actually read the document the commission produced. It goes through amost all the magisterial texts being debated here. All the debate in this thread is pointless. The commission did not “do away” with limbo–in fact, it stated that it can be believed and defended–in fact, quoting Pius VI’s condemnation of the Jansenists, says its heretical to condemn people who defend it.

Likewise, the final answer was, we can’t know for absolutely sure either way.

I think it is best that we simply stop speculating on the salvation of others–it’s a waste of time. Leave it to the theologians in the ivory towers.

 

[Genesis315]

Originally Posted by napad forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*
and from the1302 papal bull Unam Sanctam which states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII).

Now this says that one needs to be subject to the Pope to be saved which means there maybe other things that are necessary besides sanctifying grace. It is a possibility.*

Not quite. All that is necessary is sanctifying grace–it’s just the severing oneself from the Church by rejecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff would expell sanctifying grace.

Read this document from the Holy Office under Pius XII:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixe.html

 

[rlg94086]

Likewise, the final answer was, we can’t know for absolutely sure either way.

Which is what I have been arguing throughout this thread.

I think it is best that we simply stop speculating on the salvation of others–it’s a waste of time. Leave it to the theologians in the ivory towers.

:nope:

I prefer to leave it to God. Theologians in ivory towers are completley powerless in regards to salvation.