Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I wonder, how does one die in a state of Grace if they are not Catholic? Everyone sins, so…
 
Which is what I have been arguing throughout this thread. 🙂

:nope:

I prefer to leave it to God. Theologians in ivory towers are completley powerless in regards to salvation.
Quite correct, infallible theologians have no power over God. However, the infallible Church has authority given by God and it has loudly and ceaselessly proclaimed that bpatism is an absolute.
 
Quite correct, infallible theologians have no power over God. However, the infallible Church has authority given by God and it has loudly and ceaselessly proclaimed that bpatism is an absolute.
Correct…including baptism of desire and blood.
 
The bottom line, imo, is that God made baptism an absolute, he left no escape hatch. If He chooses to save souls that have not been baptized, then He is God and can do whatever He pleases. However, the only thin we really know for sure is that baptism is an absolute, and Limbo is simply a theory that helps maintain the absolute nature of baptism.

No person can believe with certitude that babies go to Heaven, because God has never said that. God did say that unless one is baptized by water and the Spirit, they cannot enter the kingdom.
 
Correct…including baptism of desire and blood.
God never included desire and a form of baptism. And, to my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong with this), the Church has never made an infallible statement about baptism of desire.
 
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.
Give me a break…

As I’m sure others have said, this is not a change of doctrine, you goof…!

Remarriage after true marriage will never be allowed.

Denial of communion should be, but isn’t, enforced to the hilt,… though really can’t be due the “unknowability of state” factor that a Priest has of a communicant.

Contraception? Hah…! No freakin’ way…

I take it you’re not Catholic,… or at least shouldn’t be? 🙂

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
 
God never included desire and a form of baptism. And, to my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong with this), the Church has never made an infallible statement about baptism of desire.
I only know what I read in the Catechism, and the Catechism says that “***This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism.” ***

I’m not an expert on what is fallible or infallible, so I primarily read the Bible, read my Catechism and pray.
 
I only know what I read in the Catechism, and the Catechism says that “***This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism.” ***

I’m not an expert on what is fallible or infallible, so I primarily read the Bible, read my Catechism and pray.
I think you know by now that I agree that one can hope that unborn babies can somehow go to Heaven. I hold a great love for the innocent ones and truly do hope that God has crafter a way.

However, if God has a way, He has not revealed that to us or to the Church. Saying they are baptized by desire or for blood cannot apply to the unborn because they have no concious thought or ability to desire anything, nor does their dying mean they died for Christ because there are many unborn babies who die that come from non-Christian parents.

The Council of Trent, if memory serves, spoke of baptism of desire, which means that “desire” might very well be an infallibly held teaching of the faith, yet one must have the capacity to desire in order to be elligible for such a grace.

Limbo simply helps keep us honest about baptism and original sin–that is why it will never be condemned or removed from the faith as a viable theory.

In the end, we can hope in God’s mercy, but we cannot assume God will save the unborn…Limbo might very well be the place they go for eternal natural happiness. We do ourselves and the faith and all souls good if we do not make assumptions about what God will do.
 
I think you know by now that I agree that one can hope that unborn babies can somehow go to Heaven. I hold a great love for the innocent ones and truly do hope that God has crafter a way.

However, if God has a way, He has not revealed that to us or to the Church. Saying they are baptized by desire or for blood cannot apply to the unborn because they have no concious thought or ability to desire anything, nor does their dying mean they died for Christ because there are many unborn babies who die that come from non-Christian parents.
We have no disagreement there. All I’ve said is that God may have a way - in fact, I’m pretty certain in another post I said whether it is Baptism of desire, blood or “some other method.” I don’t know how (or if) God removes original sin from an unbaptized baby, as it has not been revealed. However, since we know there are two other revealed situations outside of Baptism with water, logically there could be a way. The Church says we can hope, and I see no reason why we can’t hope.
The Council of Trent, if memory serves, spoke of baptism of desire, which means that “desire” might very well be an infallibly held teaching of the faith, yet one must have the capacity to desire in order to be elligible for such a grace.
Sounds like you answered your own question. 🙂
Limbo simply helps keep us honest about baptism and original sin–that is why it will never be condemned or removed from the faith as a viable theory.

In the end, we can hope in God’s mercy, but we cannot assume God will save the unborn…Limbo might very well be the place they go for eternal natural happiness. We do ourselves and the faith and all souls good if we do not make assumptions about what God will do.
Agreed. I have never (I don’t think…never say never 😛 ) argued that Limbo is not possible, only that it is not required. It may or may not exist, as far as I am concerned. And, of course, it either does or doesn’t exist, regardless of what we or any theologian thinks.
 
We have no disagreement there. All I’ve said is that God may have a way - in fact, I’m pretty certain in another post I said whether it is Baptism of desire, blood or “some other method.” I don’t know how (or if) God removes original sin from an unbaptized baby, as it has not been revealed. However, since we know there are two other revealed situations outside of Baptism with water, logically there could be a way. The Church says we can hope, and I see no reason why we can’t hope.

Sounds like you answered your own question. 🙂

Agreed. I have never (I don’t think…never say never 😛 ) argued that Limbo is not possible, only that it is not required. It may or may not exist, as far as I am concerned. And, of course, it either does or doesn’t exist, regardless of what we or any theologian thinks.
So hope is fine, belief with any real certitude is wrong because God told us baptism was an absolute. IMO< the Church MUST protect what it does know, and not let those truths be watered down.

I still say that many people will think LImbo was banished and that the Church has now declared unborns go to Heaven, neither is true and that is why I feel the Church would have better to say nothing. It did not take this statement for people to hope, people already hoped for the unborn. All this did was open up a very real possibility that people will ignore baptizing their babies and that abortionists will now tell people the aborted babies go straight to Heaven, which means the abortionists become saviors.
 
Excellent now they just need to teach that homosexuals are good and don’t need to live a sexless life for there whole life.
Homosexual acts are sinful, but having homosexual tendencies is not sinful. A person with same-sex attraction can glorify God by living a life of celibacy. We all having different callings in life.
 
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.
The existence of Hell is infallible teaching. Limbo is not, but merely theological speculation. BIG DIFFERENCE.
 
I wonder, how does one die in a state of Grace if they are not Catholic? Everyone sins, so…
A non-Catholic person can enter Heaven if they are invisibly ignorant of the fullness of truth contained only in the Catholic Church, and if they have perfect contrition for their sins. If so, they would die in a state of Grace and be destined for Heaven.
 
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.
I don’t think this is a waste of time. It is quite important that Catholics understand what we are free to believe, and what has been infallibly revealed to us. I find theological speculation on this matter rather interesting. There is nothing wrong with searching for the truth on matters that haven’t been infallibly revealed, the use of our reason is a great gift from God. Other examples of possible debate would be evolution vs. theistic evolution, or celibate vs. married priesthood. On these issues too we are free to have differing opinions.
 
The bottom line, imo, is that God made baptism an absolute, he left no escape hatch. If He chooses to save souls that have not been baptized, then He is God and can do whatever He pleases. However, the only thin we really know for sure is that baptism is an absolute, and Limbo is simply a theory that helps maintain the absolute nature of baptism.

No person can believe with certitude that babies go to Heaven, because God has never said that. God did say that unless one is baptized by water and the Spirit, they cannot enter the kingdom.
And likewise, nobody can say with certitude that babies go to Limbo, because God has never revealed that. There is no definite revelation on this matter, we are free to have differing opinions.
 
God never included desire and a form of baptism. And, to my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong with this), the Church has never made an infallible statement about baptism of desire.
Actually the Church has made infallible statements on the matter…

Council of Trent: “Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, OR THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Session 6, Chapter 4)

Council of Trent: “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, OR WITHOUT THE DESIRE THEREOF, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”(Session 7, Canon 4)

Here is some non-infallible information, but it is good Catholic teaching on the matter…

Catechism of the Council of Trent: “On adults, however, the Church… has ordained that Baptism be deferred for a certain time. … should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them grace and righteousness.”

Vatican II:"A Catechumen, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own. (LG14)

St. Alphonsus “it is de fide – that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith – that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit.”

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) The City of God: “For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;” and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundred fold?”

St. Cyprian of Carthage, 252 AD “The catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive the glorious and most sublime blood-baptism”.

St. John Chrysostom , 391 AD “Do not be surprised that I call MARTYRDOM A BAPTISM; FOR HERE TOO THE SPIRIT COMES IN GREAT HASTE AND THERE IS A TAKING AWAY OF SINS AND A WONDERFUL AND MARVELOUS CLEANSING OF THE SOUL; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred.”

Venerable Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam, Allocution against the Errors of Rationalism and Indifferentism, December 9, 1854
It must indeed be held as being of Faith that nobody can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church, the only ark of salvation, into which if anybody does not enter he will perish by the flood; but it must nevertheless be
likewise held for certain that those who suffer from ignorance of the true religion, provided that it is invincible,
will not be held accountable for this.
 
God never included desire and a form of baptism. And, to my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong with this), the Church has never made an infallible statement about baptism of desire.
Continuation in defense of baptism by water, blood, and desire…

St. Alphonsus deLiguori…

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”.

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

Venerable Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863
And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, it is necessary once more to mention and censure the serious
error into which some Catholics have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. This is in direct opposition to
Catholic teaching.

We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they
carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are
prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine
light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and
habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis).

However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that
those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of the church, and who stubbornly remain separated
form the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to whom the Saviour has
entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot attain salvation.

Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132
A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he
who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called
charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943
From a heart overflowing with love, we ask each and every one of them [non-Catholics] to correspond to the
interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their
salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the
Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be
enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.

Also, St. Thomas Aquinas defended belief in the three modes of baptism.*
 
However, if God has a way, He has not revealed that to us or to the Church. Saying they are baptized by desire or for blood cannot apply to the unborn because they have no concious thought or ability to desire anything, nor does their dying mean they died for Christ because there are many unborn babies who die that come from non-Christian parents.

In the end, we can hope in God’s mercy, but we cannot assume God will save the unborn…Limbo might very well be the place they go for eternal natural happiness. We do ourselves and the faith and all souls good if we do not make assumptions about what God will do.
They could be baptised by desire, through one of the three possible theories that I have mentioned.

We can not assume with certainty that they go to Limbo OR that they go to Heaven. It has not been infallibly revealed to us. We are free to believe either one.
 
So hope is fine, belief with any real certitude is wrong because God told us baptism was an absolute. IMO< the Church MUST protect what it does know, and not let those truths be watered down.

I still say that many people will think LImbo was banished and that the Church has now declared unborns go to Heaven, neither is true and that is why I feel the Church would have better to say nothing. It did not take this statement for people to hope, people already hoped for the unborn. All this did was open up a very real possibility that people will ignore baptizing their babies and that abortionists will now tell people the aborted babies go straight to Heaven, which means the abortionists become saviors.
No offense, but again this is a terribly illogical argument. This entire debate only matters to practicing and faithful Catholics, who are not the ones getting abortions. By your logic, someone who murders a baby after baptism is a savior because they sent them to Heaven. Wrong…they would be a murderer. Many people are murdered that go to Heaven upon death, and this doesn’t mean the murder was good, it was evil. Same thing with the holy martyrs who died for the faith. Since they went to Heaven does that mean their killers were doing so out of mercy, that they should be called saviors? Of course not. But there can be good things drawn out of evil actions, just look at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The great paradox, the greatest evil, Deicide, creatures crucify the Creator, but even more so the greatest good, humanity is redeemed and we can achieve eternal salvation in this act of perfect sacrifice and love.

Again, Catholics are free to believe in Limbo, or free to believe that these infants can enter Heaven. Either way, the Catholic is still in line with Church teaching on Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. In similar manner, it does not conflict with the teaching that “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” when believing non-Catholics can be saved. If they have invisible ignorance, and they live a good life and follow God’s moral precepts, seeking the truth and to do God’s will, and having perfect contrition for any mortal sins committed, and they die in a state of grace, they are in the most basic level members of the Catholic Church, and have been baptised by desire, even though they don’t realize it. You are free to believe in Limbo, but I believe these infants are baptised by desire, which is an acceptable position for a faithful Catholic to hold.
 
No offense, but again this is a terribly illogical argument. This entire debate only matters to practicing and faithful Catholics, who are not the ones getting abortions. By your logic, someone who murders a baby after baptism is a savior because they sent them to Heaven. Wrong…they would be a murderer. Many people are murdered that go to Heaven upon death, and this doesn’t mean the murder was good, it was evil. Same thing with the holy martyrs who died for the faith. Since they went to Heaven does that mean their killers were doing so out of mercy, that they should be called saviors? Of course not. But there can be good things drawn out of evil actions, just look at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The great paradox, the greatest evil, Deicide, creatures crucify the Creator, but even more so the greatest good, humanity is redeemed and we can achieve eternal salvation in this act of perfect sacrifice and love.

Again, Catholics are free to believe in Limbo, or free to believe that these infants can enter Heaven. Either way, the Catholic is still in line with Church teaching on Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. In similar manner, it does not conflict with the teaching that “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” when believing non-Catholics can be saved. If they have invisible ignorance, and they live a good life and follow God’s moral precepts, seeking the truth and to do God’s will, and they die in a state of grace, they are in the most basic level members of the Catholic Church, and have been baptised by desire, even though they don’t realize it. You are free to believe in Limbo, but I believe these infants are baptised by desire, which is an acceptable position for a faithful Catholic to hold.
You just cannot provide a sound refutation for my argument, try as you have and will.

If unborn babies need no baptism (baptism of desire is impossible for unborn babies), then abortion is/will be seen as a good thing.

I DO agree that faithful Catholics do not get abortions, but that is not the point. The point is abortionists will use this as a means to justify further slaughter of babies. There is just no way to argue the point that if unborns need no baptism, then it is better to be aborted, then to be born.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top