Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[johnstown_johnn]

I disagree I believe homosexual activities to be just as pure and good as heterosexual activities. I also think a large group trying to get a minority to live a sexless life and put pressure and strain on the individuals to live this way merely because they were born different to be sinful. Just my opinions however

So then…God blesses homosexual acts? St. Paul was wrong too?

And sex, in and of itself, is purely for intimate pleasure? Please educate us on the 6th Commandment and all of it’s ramifications.

Homosexual “sex” is not sex…it is a deviation.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I don’t believe the Catholic teachings to be correct in the first place so honestly that long post meant nothing to me sorry.

If you don’t believe Catholic teachings to be corresct then…why are you here?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

It is never charitable to confirm someone in their sin, as Father Corapi says. It is charitable to speak the truth to people, no matter how unpopular it may be, to lead people to God’s truth, and help draw them closer to Jesus Christ. I sympathize with those who have the disorder of same-sex attraction, who have homosexual tendencies. But they have a choice, they can act on this and committ sin, or they can glorify God and live a celibate lifestyle.

But a caveat must be noted.

The truth of the Catholic Church’s teachings on the virtue of chastity rest on the very same foundation as her dogma of the excusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision. This foundation is the Church’s infallibility. Infallibility makes the Church’s dogmas and moral teachings immutable. These doctrines can be clarified in the course of centuries, but they cannot be denied.

If the Church can now contradict the Lyons II-Florence de fide teaching concerning the next-world punishment of those who die in original sin only, then she can also reverse her teaching on sodomy (or any other sin).

Of course, the Church **cannot **retract her condemnation of any sin. By the same token, she cannot start telling the faithful and the world that unbaptized infants may attain the beatific vision after all.

Nor can we say that Lyons II and Florence simply meant: “Those who die only in original sin are punished in the next life only ***if ***any human beings actually die only in original sin. Because unbaptized infants can receive baptism of desire, no one actually dies in original sin only.” Such an interpretation makes the conciliar teachings nonsensical and pointless. Christ does not remain with the Catholic Church until the end of the world to enable ecumenical councils to make nonsensical and pointless statements.

I respectfully but urgently ask all those who deny the truth of the Catholic dogma of the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision to ponder the implications of their denial.

FTS is absolutely correct to say:

"It is charitable to speak the truth to people, no matter how unpopular it may be . . .]."

The above Catholic principle also applies to the dogmas of original sin and the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

In my post #460, I meant to write:

"The truth of the Catholic Church’s teachings on the virtue of chastity rests on the very same foundation as her dogma of the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision."

Those in charge of these forums should make it possible to correct typos indefinitely.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tom317]

First of all, obviously to receive baptism of blood you must be dying for your Christian faith. I never said anything contrary to this.

Second of all, your attempted cut about my supposed mis-understanding of the Catholic faith only shows your own desperation in this subject area. You have done nothing to explain how I am being intellectually inconsistent. Rather my position is absolutely consistent. Original Sin is real, and baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. I believe infants can be validly baptised by desire, which would wipe away Original Sin and place them in a state of grace. That is consistent, and there is no way of getting around it. I have also taken apart your argument of people beginning to “claim that abortion is great and sends people to Heaven.” The only people who care about this issue are faithful and practicing Catholics, who are not performing or receiving abortions. These people could care less what the Catholic Church thinks on the matter! Their thoughts are focused on “me, myself, and I.” How I can rid myself of this “problem,” or how I can get my pockets fatter by murdering innocent babies. Murder is always evil and wrong, even if the person will go to Heaven as a result. This is not hard for anyone to understand. Have you ever heard people claim radical Islamic fundamentalists are saviors, are doing great things because they murder Christians and send them to Heaven as holy martyrs? I don’t think so. Yes, it is good when someone enters Heaven, but that doesn’t mean the action of murdering them is good, it is wholly evil and horrible. You have been unable to refute my arguments against your sentiments.

You continue to act as if Limbo is infallible doctrine, which is the cause of your downfall. You fail to admit that faithful Catholics are allowed to believe in Limbo OR to believe that these infants can go to Heaven, just like Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and other Catholic theologians do. Until you recognize this you are in error, and opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You are not the least bit consistent, and I have shown you your error, yet you refuse to see the truth. Baptism of desire is real and one can be baptized by desire or blood, to that we both agree. However, you are under the very much mistaken notion that an unborn baby can have reason and can therefore “desire” baptism, when in fact the Church declares the age of reason is seven years old, which means no-one under seven needs to baptized if we follow your logic because they will all go straight to heaven. So, contrary to your challenge to me, it is YOU that makes a case for people to commit abortions and under YOUR mistaken theories babies and children to age seven would suffer nothing at all if they died without baptism.

Baptism by water and spirit is an absolute, there is no escaping that, and only under incredibly strict circumtances can a person be baptized by blood or desire and in both of those the person(s) are born, not unborn, they must have the ability to reason.

 

[Tom317]

In your own personal opinion, you may feel that way. I disagree, and feel any of those three theories could be applied to the unborn. We are free to disagree on the matter.

No we are not free to disagree on the matter of baptism, we are free to disagree about Limbo, but not about baptism. One cannot receive any form of baptism until they are born.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

No we are not free to disagree on the matter of baptism, we are free to disagree about Limbo, but not about baptism. One cannot receive any form of baptism until they are born.

Well sais.

One more point regarding belief/disbelief in the existance of Limbo. If we believe Limbo exists then it is a motivating nudge for us to participate more in protecting the unborn.

If Limbo is NOT believed and the unbaptized face no consequences then…what’s all the fuss?

 

[GreenJeans]

No we are not free to disagree on the matter of baptism, we are free to disagree about Limbo, but not about baptism. One cannot receive any form of baptism until they are born.

For whom does the Church say Yeshua came? Biologists tell us more embryos naturally perish prior to birth than are born. Most fail in very early development before a woman even suspects she is pregnant.

So, that leaves less than half that make it into the atmosphere. More than half the human race never does make it. So, did Yeshua come for only the lucky half?

 

[GreenJeans]

Well sais.

One more point regarding belief/disbelief in the existance of Limbo. If we believe Limbo exists then it is a motivating nudge for us to participate more in protecting the unborn.

If Limbo is NOT believed and the unbaptized face no consequences then…what’s all the fuss?

Good point. In the post immediately above I refer to over half the race lost in very early development. I never hear any concen for them. Deafening quiet…

 

[Tom317]

For whom does the Church say Yeshua came? Biologists tell us more embryos naturally perish prior to birth than are born. Most fail in very early development before a woman even suspects she is pregnant.

So, that leaves less than half that make it into the atmosphere. More than half the human race never does make it. So, did Yeshua come for only the lucky half?

Not for the so-called lucky half. A soul that spends eternity in Limbo is experiencing natural happiness through eternity.

 

[Tom317]

Well sais.

One more point regarding belief/disbelief in the existance of Limbo. If we believe Limbo exists then it is a motivating nudge for us to participate more in protecting the unborn.

If Limbo is NOT believed and the unbaptized face no consequences then…what’s all the fuss?

Exactly, and that has been my argument all along.

 

[carol_marie]

Not for the so-called lucky half. A soul that spends eternity in Limbo is experiencing natural happiness through eternity.

How could someone be truly happy apart from God?

 

[Tom317]

FTS,

I think there is one major point you have overlooked, and it is one that might make you take pause.

First, I think both agree that one must ba baptized (water, desire or blood) in order to receive the kingdom.

Second, where we disagree is whether or not an unborn person can be baptized by desire, you say they can, I say they cannot.

Here is the point I feel you miss: The Church formally holds and teaches that baptism of desire is a valid form of baptism; therefore, if unborn babies can receive baptism of desire, then the Church would teach that and this subject would be closed forever. However, the Church never has said that the unborn can receive any form of baptism, rather it simple says that we can hope that God will show mercy upon them and bring them into Heaven. It seems utterly clear from Church teachings, the Bible, Tradition and even current statements, that the Church does not believe that unborn babies can receive baptism of desire. Which brings us full circle to the points I have been making. Basically, your view that the unborn can receive baptism of desire is YOUR view is not formally held by the Church in any way.

Limbo stands…thank God.

 

[Tom317]

How could someone be truly happy apart from God?

Just because a person is not experiencing the Beatific Vision, does not mean they cannot experience happiness, even profound happiness. I have had plenty of days and times in my life where I was incredinbly happy, yet I am not in the Beatific Vision here on Earth.

The Bible speaks of various rewards in Heaven, and I personally have read that only faithful Roman Catholics experience the full Beatific Vision (not a Church teaching btw). So, there is every real possibility that there will be differing levels of happiness in Heaven, and let us not forget that God has many rooms.

 

[GreenJeans]

Not for the so-called lucky half. A soul that spends eternity in Limbo is experiencing natural happiness through eternity.

In that case, Yeshua’s mission means nothing for over half the human race. They are in the same situation as if he never made the trip.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

How come ? This is a theological novelty; if there were some basis for it in the sources of the Faith, something from which it could be said to have developed organically, it might be credible. But so far, the case for it seems to be built on nothing but sentimentality And sentimentality is a very bad basis for doctrine.​

God does not owe us salvation. He is Infinite Holiness - we come into the world damaged by sin, unholy. Without His grace to make us what of ourselves we cannot be, we cannot have communion with Him. These are insights of the first importance, & the stern doctrine that the unbaptised cannot enter heaven without the grace of God to make them Christ’s, preserves those insights against the all too widespread notion that we are good people who can save ourselves. ##

We are free to decide and have our personal opinions.

We are free not to be harrassed by one another into expressing what we do not believe, definitely; but not free from God Who desires that we should have the Mind of Christ: we do not belong to ourselves, but to Christ.​

Call me crazy, but I don’t think that someone believing God wouldn’t ban someone from Heaven who committed no personal sin

The issue is not that those in Limbo committed no actual (or, if you prefer, personal) sins; but, that they lack sanctifying grace.​

Even if someone lived a hundred years without committing a single actual sin, he would, without sanctifying grace, be no better off than an unbaptised child.

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. ## This is an an over-extension of the doctrine of “baptism of desire” - apart from anything else, who is doing the desiring: the parents ? The Church ? Certainly not the deceased - unless we can change our condition after death.

“Baptism of desire” must not be confused with “desire of baptism”.

Besides, a view like that being put forward now was put forward by Thomas de Vio (1468-1534: AKA Cardinal Cajetan) O.P. in his Commentary on the Summa Theologiae of St.Thomas. About 50 years later, St. Pius V condemned it, & forbade it to be taught. So what has happened to make it safe or tolerable now ?

There is no salvation, can be none, will to all eternity be none, except in Jesus Christ alone. St.Peter himself affirms this in Acts 4.12. If we are not in Him, we cannot by any means be saved. If ever a truth were impregnably, unalterably, eternally certain for our fallen race, it is that. And to be in Him, we need His saving grace. ##

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

Lack of infallibility, like lack of being dogmatised, is a red herring - because the truth of a doctrine can be certain, without its being formally defined as a dogma.​

All dogmas are certainly true, before they are dogmatised - otherwise they could never be dogmatised. The Assumption was not a dogma in 1814 - but its truth was as certain then as it was in 1951, a year after it was defined. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The existence of Hell is infallible teaching. Limbo is not, but merely theological speculation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Posters from non-Roman Rites & Churches seem rather keen on trying to chip away at it, or so I’ve noticed.​

If certain Fathers or writers (modern or ancient) think Hell will come to an end - they are wrong. Hell is eternal, as is punishment there (whatever “there” amounts to).

But that does not mean people don’t find it hard to accept.

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized

EXCERPT:

1. The idea of limbo, which the church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation.

The necessary reconsideration of the theological issues cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state.

1. Reflecting on the question of the destiny of infants who die without baptism, the ecclesial community must keep in mind the fact that God is more properly the subject than the object of theology. The first task of theology is therefore to listen to the word of God. Theology listens to the word of God expressed in the Scriptures in order to communicate it lovingly to all people.

 

[Grace_Angel]

johnstown_johnn:
Jonestown John,Respectfully you speak a load of rubbish. It is your kind of thinking which muddies waters and keeps a place like Limbo going with the minutest “t”
Fancy saying that aborting a infant at whatever gestational age is a great mercy of God. What utter rusbbish and nonsense, idiot thought. There is the 5th commandment though shalt not kill. the breaking of this commandment by parents of the infant, the abortionisht, the parents, society, washes the land in blood. The child is the most innocen t of the lot. And if you rmember Jesus was Baptised at 30 years of Aage and not as a baby. As a baby He would have been circumscised which is different than Baptism. Circumcision entered Him into the OT covenants. Indeed he became the Whole OT covenant and the NT covenant.
With Limbo we are talking about infant who die in the womb, including miscarried, stillbirth and early birth, and unexpected SIDS deaths and not just abortion.
As far as the good thief is concerned you are stretching the bow with your story if Didymus finger. Rot. as far as we know Baptism came into being clearly after Jesus was born and developed as a sacrament in the early history of the church. Church Fathers tried to make sense of what happens without baptism.
It is understood that Baptism is important to initiate the person into the household of God. Brings the child into the journey towards heaven. And if it removes O/S well and good.
Its stupidity to threatn parents about baptism. Yes its important but make it important for the right reasons and not for fear.
Grace Angel.

 

[rlg94086]

I was going to leave this thread lie, but your post is really reminiscent of your earlier comments, when you assumed that people would think, mistakenly, that unbaptized babies go to heaven.

If you are so convinced that they go to Limbo, and Limbo is eternal happiness, why wouldn’t it be better to abort a baby and guarantee Limbo, then to allow them to live and risk hell?

It seems that certain belief in Limbo is just as dangerous as certain belief that unbaptized babies go to Heaven.

Just because a person is not experiencing the Beatific Vision, does not mean they cannot experience happiness, even profound happiness. I have had plenty of days and times in my life where I was incredinbly happy, yet I am not in the Beatific Vision here on Earth.

The Bible speaks of various rewards in Heaven, and I personally have read that only faithful Roman Catholics experience the full Beatific Vision (not a Church teaching btw). So, there is every real possibility that there will be differing levels of happiness in Heaven, and let us not forget that God has many rooms.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The complete text of the International Theological Commission (ITC) document entitled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized” has now been published on the Web:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=7529

Those Catholics whose faith is strong enough should read this document thoroughly and carefully to verify the impossibility of its conclusion that unbaptized infants may attain the beatific vision.

If you read this erroneous document, you will see that these theologians distort the truth that God wills the salvation of all human beings, as St. Paul teaches in 1 Tim 2:3-4. Indeed, God *does *will the salvation of all human beings, but on no occasion has the Catholic Church ever taught that the salvation of which Scripture speaks in *1 Tim *2:3-4 is always identical with the attainment of the beatific vision, or that this salvation cannot be the unending *natural *happiness of limbo. All those who are saved from the pain of sense in hell–from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell–are truly saved from something horrific, even if they are not granted the utterly free gift of supernatural happiness in heaven in addition to exemption from the sufferings of those who die in unrepented mortal sin.

In addition, let us not forget that God’s universal salvific will does *not *mean that all those with the use of reason actually avoid hell and go to heaven.

The ITC theologians try to support their mistaken conclusion by drawing a distinction between a “common doctrine” and “the faith of the Church.” They admit that the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision on account of original sin is a “common doctrine,” but they deny that this exclusion is “the faith of the Church.”

On the contrary, the ITC’s spurious distinction between a “common doctrine” (deniable) and “the faith of the Church” (undeniable) cannot be accepted, for it leads to the destruction of the Faith. If this ITC distinction is valid, then *every *Catholic dogma and moral teaching can now be discarded on the ground that it is merely a “common doctrine.” For example, to achieve better relations with Protestants, the Catholic Church can now declare that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are only “common doctrines” that do not belong to “the faith of the Church.” And the Church can now say that the prohibitions of contraception and abortion are merely “common doctrines” that have been superseded by the enormous growth in the world’s population.

Please pray to Our Lady of Fátima for the theologians who have produced this erroneous statement, and for the millions of Catholics who have been scandalized by it.

Keep and spread the Faith.