Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[GreenJeans]

This has been a very interesting conversation, and I thank you for the time and effort. Yet, I have asked you twice to cease referring to human persons as single cell humans. You do not want to give that small conession, so I must leave the conversation. Again, thanky you and may God Bless you fully.

I do not choose to indulge your choice of words for me. That’s silly. I think we can see how effecive my choice of words really is.

In summary, under your claims and only under your claims, the single-cell human was not effected by Yeshua’s mission. And since biologists tell us more than half such single-cell humans perish proir to breathing air, we can say Yeshaua’s mission did not effect them, nor was it aimed at them, nor was it aimed at all of mankind. Limbo before Yeshua, Limbo after Yeshua, Limbo forever…

 

[Tom317]

I really don’t care if you like the term. I am describing exactly what I intend to describe and it is obviously working. Is the single cell with a complete set of human DNA a human? Is it composed of one cell? That’s why I call it a single-cell human. What is the difficulty?

The difficulty is that from the moment of conception it is a real person, and I find the term single cell human offensive. Since you refuse to acknowledge the personhood of every conceived life, our conversation is through.

Again, thank you for the talk, have a good evening.

 

[GreenJeans]

The difficulty is that from the moment of conception it is a real person, and I find the term single cell human offensive. Since you refuse to acknowledge the personhood of every conceived life, our conversation is through.

Again, thank you for the talk, have a good evening.

The word “human” is now offensive? That’s interesting. Many Catholics regularly campaign against abortion by telling us it is the taking of a human life. Is that also offensive? The term “single-cell human” highlights the fact that it is a real person from the moment of conception. Why does that make you uncomfortable? Is it hard to really think of that miroscopic single cell as a human?

 

[Tom317]

The word “human” is now offensive? That’s interesting. Many Catholics regularly campaign against abortion by telling us it is the taking of a human life. Is that also offensive? The term “single-cell human” highlights the fact that it is a real person from the moment of conception. Why does that make you uncomfortable? Is it hard to really think of that miroscopic single cell as a human?

It is a human person and should not be referred to as single cell, that’s the type of language pro-aborts use and I find it offensive.

 

[GreenJeans]

It is a human person and should not be referred to as single cell, that’s the type of language pro-aborts use and I find it offensive.

If the person is composed of a single cell, what’s wrong with saying so? Why try to hide the fact if one actually believes that cell is a human being? That’s how God made it. Did he do something wrong? Why disrespect his handiwork?

I actually suspect many of the anti-abortion people are not nearly so convinced the cell is human as they pretend. Look how worked up they all got over Terri Shiavo, yet they ignore the abortions going on all around them. Could that be because they really don’t see the cell as human?

Again, what is wrong with forthright testimony that a single-cell is a human? Why do you find that concept offensive? Why run from it?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I really don’t care if you like the term. I am describing exactly what I intend to describe and it is obviously working. Is the single cell with a complete set of human DNA a human? Is it composed of one cell? That’s why I call it a single-cell human. What is the difficulty?

I am curious. “Working” at what? This supposes a purpose. The only result seemed to be one of offense taken. Is this the purpose it had?

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I actually suspect many of the anti-abortion people are not nearly so convinced the cell is human as they pretend. Look how worked up they all got over Terri Shiavo, yet they ignore the abortions going on all around them. Could that be because they really don’t see the cell as human?

I know personally of no person who opposed the murder of Terri Schiavo who does also not vehemently oppose abortion, and make the same protest against it. Why do you insult us in this way? To suggest that those advocating the right to life for Terri are ‘ignoring’ abortions IS insulting. You are suggesting a hypocrisy that you have no evidence for. That is bad behavior on your part. Please clean up your act.

Dan

 

[FTS]

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.

If it is true that nobody dies in Original Sin, the teaching of the Councils was not pointless. They taught the truth that any person with Original Sin on their soul at death cannot enter Heaven and would suffer loss of the beautic vision. This is pure truth, as is the necessity of baptism, the removal of Original Sin and receival of sanctifying grace in the soul. However, that teaching never claims that this in fact happens, only that if a person died in that manner they couldn’t enter Heaven. So the teachings were important, because they showcase the necessity of the removal of Original Sin and of baptism for salvation.

Comparing Limbo with the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts is deeply flawed. Simply put, the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts has been infallibly revealed, while Limbo is mere theological specualation, NOT infallible doctrine.

 

[FTS]

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.

I have very clearly and obviously dis-proved your mistaken notion that the Church shifting towards the salvation of these individuals would lead to more abortions. Among many other points, simply put, those having and performing abortions could care less what Catholics think about Limbo, they are NOT faithful Catholics, of whom this subject of interest ONLY pertains to. You have been unable to respond to my points, and have decided to just ignore them. I will let people decide on their own, after reading both of our arguments on that particular subject. Also, the point of debate is whether or not these individuals can receive a miraculous baptism of desire or not. We both fully agree that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[FTS]

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.

The Church has NOT infallibly declared whether or not these individuals can be miraculously baptised by desire, just as it has NOT infallibly declared that they enter into Limbo. Some Church theologians and apologists side with your view and others side with me. My whole point is that both ideas are acceptable. Yes Limbo stands as an option to believe in, as well as belief that these individuals can enter into God’s Heavenly Kingdom stands as an option too…one believed by none other than Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[FTS]

“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. #### 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. ##

I am not arguing away the necessity of baptism, I agree fully with this de fide teaching. The question is can these infants be baptised by desire in a miraculous manner by God, can He chose to remove their Original Sin and place in their souls sanctifying grace at the moment prededing death? This is theologially possible to believe in, just as Limbo is too. This isn’t a “one or the other” option, we are free to disagree.

 

[FTS]

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).

I also have heard of liberal theologians who try to deny the truth of eternal Hell, and they are very mistaken. I totally agree with you on this.

 

[FTS]

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.

I read the document and thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree with it and support the conclusion. And it is you who is distorting the truth of God’s salvific will. God desires that all be saved and enter into Heaven. God desires no person to go to Hell and likewise He desires nobody to go to “Limbo” to be separated from His presence. Yes, many people refuse to accept God’s gift of salvation via their own actions and free will. But God not only desires all people to avoid Hell, He desires all His people to enter into Heaven to reign with Him in Heavenly glory forever. It is true, it is much more aligned with God’s salvific will that He would provide these individuals the means to have Original Sin wiped away and receive sanctifying grace into their souls.

 

[FTS]

I read the document and thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree with it and support the conclusion. And it is you who is distorting the truth of God’s salvific will. God desires that all be saved and enter into Heaven. God desires no person to go to Hell and likewise He desires nobody to go to “Limbo” to be separated from His presence. Yes, many people refuse to accept God’s gift of salvation via their own actions and free will. But God not only desires all people to avoid Hell, He desires all His people to enter into Heaven to reign with Him in Heavenly glory forever. It is true, it is much more aligned with God’s salvific will that He would provide these individuals the means to have Original Sin wiped away and receive sanctifying grace into their souls.

Continued…

Here are some more great excerpts from the ITC document to ponder…

1. “When an infant is baptized, he or she cannot personally make a profession of faith. Rather, at that moment the parents and the church as a whole provide a context of faith for the sacramental action. Indeed, St. Augustine teaches that it is the church that presents a child for baptism.132 The church professes her faith and intercedes powerfully for the infant, supplying the act of faith that the infant is unable to make; again the bonds of communion, both natural and supernatural, are operative and manifest.”

“If an unbaptized infant is incapable of a votum baptismi, then by the same bonds of communion the church might be able to intercede for the infant and express a votum baptismi on his or her behalf that is effective before God. Moreover, the church effectively does express in her liturgy just such a votum by the very charity toward all that is renewed in her in every celebration of the Eucharist.”

1. “Jesus taught, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5); from which we understand the need for sacramental baptism.133 Likewise, he said: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53); from which we understand the (closely related) need for participation in the Eucharist. However, just as we do not conclude from the latter words that someone who has not received the sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be saved, so we should not deduce from the former words that someone who has not received the sacrament of baptism cannot be saved.”

“What we should conclude is that no one is saved without some relation to baptism and Eucharist, and therefore to the church, which is defined by these sacraments. All salvation has some relation to baptism, Eucharist and the church. The principle that there is “no salvation outside the church” means that there is no salvation which is not from Christ and ecclesial by its very nature. Likewise, the scriptural teaching that “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb 11:6) indicates the intrinsic role of the church, the communion of faith, in the work of salvation. It is especially in the liturgy of the church that this role becomes manifest, as the church prays and intercedes for all, including unbaptized infants who die.”

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).”

1. “What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.135 Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.”

 

[FTS]

I read the document and thoroughly enjoyed it. I agree with it and support the conclusion. And it is you who is distorting the truth of God’s salvific will. God desires that all be saved and enter into Heaven. God desires no person to go to Hell and likewise He desires nobody to go to “Limbo” to be separated from His presence. Yes, many people refuse to accept God’s gift of salvation via their own actions and free will. But God not only desires all people to avoid Hell, He desires all His people to enter into Heaven to reign with Him in Heavenly glory forever. It is true, it is much more aligned with God’s salvific will that He would provide these individuals the means to have Original Sin wiped away and receive sanctifying grace into their souls.

After reading the ITC document, I realized a fourth possible theory in which these individuals are 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. In Heaven it it is speculated that we will appear in our glorified bodies in the age range of 20s to 30s, regardless of whether we die at 6 months or at 90 years of age. It could be speculated that God supernaturally infuses in these individuals free will and reason before death to reject Him and go to Hell, or to accept Him, be baptised by desire, and enter into Heaven.
2. The desire for these individual’s salvation, and prayers from 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.
4. In essence, to be baptised is to have your Original Sin removed and be given sanctifying grace in the soul, the dwelling of the Holy Trinity within you. When we baptise babies with water, it is the desire of the parent or caretaker for this child that leads to their baptism. There is belief that God could supernaturally supply baptism for the person, a form of baptism by desire. The desire for their baptism and salvation is supplied by and comes from God, and He supernaturally removes their Original Sin, placing sanctifying grace in their souls before death. This correlates with God’s salvific will, the fact that He wills all to be saved and is not restricted and bound by the Sacrament of Water Baptism. He can use extraordinary means to impart His grace to others.

After reflection, I actually am beginning to believe that the 4th theory is most plausible.

 

[FTS]

Yeshua acted in time, not outside of it. The single-cell human is also inside time. It’s in Limbo prior to Yeshua, and it’s in Limbo after Yeshua. No difference.

First let me clarify that I personally disagree with Tom 317, who believes that these individuals go to Limbo. I do not believe in Limbo, and personally believe that these individuals enter into Heaven and are miraculously baptised by desire.possibly by themselves, the saints or angels, or even by the desire by Almighty God applied for them. However, Tom317 is free to believe in Limbo.

It is very interesting, the argument dealing with the premise you both are discussing. First, the idea of God being outside of time…

The merits of Jesus Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection can be applied outside of time. God is not restricted by time, He is outside of time. This is why the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ can be re-presented countless times during the Sacrifice of Holy Mass. Even at the Last Supper, before His death on cross, being outside of time, Jesus instituted the Eucharist as the First Mass, applying the merits of His once-for-all Sacrifice backwards in time. We see this again with the Immaculate Conception. Mary was conceived without sin because God applied the merits of Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection to her, and saved her from Original Sin.

Original Sin can be seen as falling into a pit, and by our baptism God pulls us out of the pit. One could look at the Immaculate Conception as God using the merits of Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection before it happened in time, because God is outside of time, and he rescued Mary before she even fell into the pit of Original Sin.

Onto the next point of discussion, the merits of Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection and Limbo…

If Limbo were true, it is on the fringe of Hell, and those who go to Limbo are damned to Hell, but do not suffer physical suffering, only the loss of beautic vision. Christ Jesus opened the gates to Heaven, and those who go to Heaven are saved by His Passion, Death, and Resurrection. To go to Limbo is not to be saved, but rather to be damned. albeit the lightest punishment in Hell. Therefore those in Hell are not merited by the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again, the idea of Limbo would not be one of salvation, but one of damnation. Salvation is not merely the lack of suffering physical torment in Hell, salvation is entering into Heaven to be with God forever. Therefore, those who believe in Limbo are indeed saying that these individuals do not benefit from the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They do not receive salvation, but rather damnation and punishment.

According to Limbo-believers, those who die in a state of mortal sin are punished and damned to Hell to suffer physical pain as well as the pain of the absence of God, and those who die with the stain of Original Sin are punished and damned to Limbo, which resides in Hell, suffering only the loss of the beautic vision. If you are being punished in the afterlife, you have not received salvation. Both the Council of Lyons II and Florence teach that those who die with Original Sin only and those who die in Mortal Sin both are punished and descend to Hell, but to receive differing punishments. This teaching is of course hypothetical in nature, stating this is the case if anyone dies with Original Sin only, which wasn’t explicitly revealed, just the result that would occur if this happened. Notice the terminology used…it is not “For some this will happen, for others this will happen”, which implies certitude. Rather the language is “for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only” for the Council of Lyons II and “the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only” for the Council of Florence. It clarifies what would happen should someone die with Original Sin only, it never states whether or not individuals will actually die in Original Sin only. But for someone believing in Limbo, accordingly you must believe those there are in Hell, and are suffering punishment, albeit not physical, and have not received salvation but rather damnation.

I do not agree with Limbo. While I realize that anyone who would die with the stain of Original Sin would not be able to enter into Heaven and would suffer the loss of beautic vision in Hell, as taught at councils previously, I do not believe anyone does die in the state of Original Sin only, because I believe these individuals are miraculously baptised by desire and enter into Heaven. Again, while a faithful Catholic may believe in Limbo, a faithful Catholic may also believe these individuals go to Heaven, as I do, and as Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, the ITC theologians, and many other Catholics believe.

 

[Tom317]

If the person is composed of a single cell, what’s wrong with saying so? Why try to hide the fact if one actually believes that cell is a human being? That’s how God made it. Did he do something wrong? Why disrespect his handiwork?

I actually suspect many of the anti-abortion people are not nearly so convinced the cell is human as they pretend. Look how worked up they all got over Terri Shiavo, yet they ignore the abortions going on all around them. Could that be because they really don’t see the cell as human?

Again, what is wrong with forthright testimony that a single-cell is a human? Why do you find that concept offensive? Why run from it?

I run from nothing, I am asking you to call it a human person because that is what it iis. I do not recall anyone ever calling me a multi-cell human, even though that would be an accurate description from a pov of science. This is not a science discussion, it is a theological conversation and I simply will not discuss this issue with you if you cannot refer to huamn people as human people. Why do YOU have such a problem calling a person a person?

 

[Tom317]

To all,

Clearly the lines of thought have been well drawn and it appears no-one is going to change their minds.

I personally follow the Church’s advice to hold HOPE for the unborn and will let it go at that. Whether or not the statement about Limbo will help abortionists justify their murder is something that will take time to see, so we will not know if those theories are correct or wrong overnight.

I now bow out of this thead, because I really have nothing new to add.

God Bless to all.

 

[GreenJeans]

I am curious. “Working” at what? This supposes a purpose. The only result seemed to be one of offense taken. Is this the purpose it had?

Dan

The purpose is to highlight the range of physical forms over which humanity exists. At the one extreme is the single-cell human. At the other is the hundred-year-old. I think most people ignore the fact that half the human race perishes prior to birth through natural processes. These people are rarely mentioned. Why?.

And offensive? The term is no more offensive than the claim we constantly hear that human life begins at conception. That’s when it is a single cell. Why is application of that claim offensive?

 

[GreenJeans]

I know personally of no person who opposed the murder of Terri Schiavo who does also not vehemently oppose abortion, and make the same protest against it. Why do you insult us in this way? To suggest that those advocating the right to life for Terri are ‘ignoring’ abortions IS insulting. You are suggesting a hypocrisy that you have no evidence for. That is bad behavior on your part. Please clean up your act.

Dan

It’s not at all insulting. Simply look at all the activity surrounding Terri Shiavo compared to all the activity against abortion. If all aborted fetuses are human, and Teri Shiavo is human, I find it quite revealing that the huge push was made for the human that looked most like the protesters. I suggest they feel a kinship with the organism that looks most like them, and do not feel the same towards the organism that looks least like them.