Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[Rach620]

It is a lock solid argument. Heaven is where everyone wants to go, correct?

If aborted babies go straight to Heaven and the full Beatific Vision, and if born people must “work out their salvation with fear and trembling,” it does not take a genius to realize it is far better to be an aborted baby and go straight to Heaven.

Where in the ITC report, specifically, does it claim that we can know that all unbaptized infants certainly enjoy the beatific vision?

You can’t make this argument that “people are going to start aborting if they know that their child will go to Heaven” unless that’s what the ITC actually said.

And so because they didn’t actually say that (all they said was that there is great reason to hope, for several reasons, that unbaptized infants enjoy the beatific vision), the alarm you’re sounding that the Church is falling apart after having rejected the idea of original sin comes off as just a bit of an overreaction.

 

[PapaSquash]

It is a lock solid argument. Heaven is where everyone wants to go, correct?

If aborted babies go straight to Heaven and the full Beatific Vision, and if born people must “work out their salvation with fear and trembling,” it does not take a genius to realize it is far better to be an aborted baby and go straight to Heaven.

Here is a better way to explain it:

Case #1. An aborted baby goes to Heaven and receives the full Beatific Vision.

Case #2. A born person lives a typical life of pain, suffering, loss, work, faith, hope, diseases, mixed with periods of joy and happiness and that person endures in their faith to the end and they receive Heaven and the fullness of the Beatific Vision. In that life they were baptized, received all the sacraments, follow Christ closely and love the Lord until their last breath.

Case #3. A born person lives a typical life of pain, suffering, loss, work, faith, hope, diseases, mixed with periods of joy and happiness and that person finds they cannot continue in their faith, they reject God, cease repenting of sins and end-up in hell after they die.

In case 1, the baby goes straight to Heaven without baptism, and without any of the redeeming suffering we go through here. In case 2, the person is baptized, receives all of the sacraments and fights the good fight throughout their life, and in the end receives exactly what the baby in case 1 received. In case 3, the person loses faith and goes to hell. Again, it does not take a genius to see that the baby in case 1 was the most fortunate of all.

Sounds like the workers in the vineyard.

Who knows? maybe the baby goes through a few millenia of redemptive suffering in purgatory?

Maybe 75 years of the daily grind is a mercy compared to centuries of purification?

Maybe you have to be born to be born into original sin?

Maybe this is an expression of invincible ignorance?

We don’t get to know.

We do get to know that to abort is wrong.
We know that we have to work to convert and baptise the living.
We do get to know that whatever God has in store is right and good.

Personally, I’m in more of a position to pray for mercy than justice.

 

[Rach620]

Why are others saying it is on the fringes of hell? St. Augustine described it as the “mildest” form of condemnation - but still, the babies were condemned - which doesn’t sound like Paradise.

St. Augustine did describe where unbaptized infants went as the outermost layer of hell, where they were under pain of loss as well as pain of sense (ie, they were in pain for not being in the presence of God, as well as enduring the ‘mildest’ pain possible of the burning fires of Hell).

St. Thomas Aquinas modified that, and said that there was neither pain of loss or pain of sense (I’m pretty sure, at least–someone correct me on this if I’m wrong), and that instead unbaptized infants achieved ‘perfect natural happiness’ for all eternity, while still being outside the presence of God.

To me, even Aquinas’ version doesn’t make much sense as a ‘third’ place…it still sounds like Hell to me, because Hell is not much more besides a place without God. And I don’t understand this concept of being ‘perfectly naturally happy’…because as persons, in a union of body and soul, our natural happiness depends on our supernatural happiness. We can’t actually be happy without God.

I think there is a huge problem with the idea of limbo when we’re talking about a child who is miscarried. As a woman and (hopefully, by the grace of God,) future mother, I will have every intention of baptizing my children. If, God forbid, I miscarry…I can’t imagine recovering from that loss by any other means than hoping in God’s infinite love and mercy that my unborn child is with Him in Heaven. I think the same goes for the other women on this thread.

 

[Tom317]

Where in the ITC report, specifically, does it claim that we can know that all unbaptized infants certainly enjoy the beatific vision?

You can’t make this argument that “people are going to start aborting if they know that their child will go to Heaven” unless that’s what the ITC actually said.

And so because they didn’t actually say that (all they said was that there is great reason to hope, for several reasons, that unbaptized infants enjoy the beatific vision), the alarm you’re sounding that the Church is falling apart after having rejected the idea of original sin comes off as just a bit of an overreaction.

The report does not say that, yet a ton of people think it does and they feel comfortable with the false thought that unborn babies automatically go to Heaven. It does not require an official statement from the Church to create a huge scandal, but it would help for the Church to make a formal statement that it Heaven, Hell, Limbo are all possible for unborn babies, absent that, most parents will choose Heaven and begin to think baptism is just another reason to throw a party.

 

[Tom317]

Sounds like the workers in the vineyard.

Who knows? maybe the baby goes through a few millenia of redemptive suffering in purgatory?

Maybe 75 years of the daily grind is a mercy compared to centuries of purification?

Maybe you have to be born to be born into original sin?

Maybe this is an expression of invincible ignorance?

We don’t get to know.

We do get to know that to abort is wrong.
We know that we have to work to convert and baptise the living.
We do get to know that whatever God has in store is right and good.

Personally, I’m in more of a position to pray for mercy than justice.

The example of the workers is not valid because they were all born and living people.

A baby that has to endure purgatory would make more sense then going straight to Heaven and the fullness of the beatific vision. Yet, purgatory is also impossible because that is reserved for people with personal sins, unborn babies do not have personal sins.

Human life begins at conception, not at birth, therefore we receive the stain of original sin when we are conceived. The Bible and Tradition do not tell us any differently.

If baptism is not required for the unborn, and if those unborn babies go straight to the full beatific vision of God in Heaven, then why is abortion wrong? It would actually seem to be the perfect sacrament of mercy–sending a baby to the BV and Heaven.

 

[bquinnan]

It is a lock solid argument. Heaven is where everyone wants to go, correct?

If aborted babies go straight to Heaven and the full Beatific Vision, and if born people must “work out their salvation with fear and trembling,” it does not take a genius to realize it is far better to be an aborted baby and go straight to Heaven.

Here is a better way to explain it:

Case #1. An aborted baby goes to Heaven and receives the full Beatific Vision.

Case #2. A born person lives a typical life of pain, suffering, loss, work, faith, hope, diseases, mixed with periods of joy and happiness and that person endures in their faith to the end and they receive Heaven and the fullness of the Beatific Vision. In that life they were baptized, received all the sacraments, follow Christ closely and love the Lord until their last breath.

Case #3. A born person lives a typical life of pain, suffering, loss, work, faith, hope, diseases, mixed with periods of joy and happiness and that person finds they cannot continue in their faith, they reject God, cease repenting of sins and end-up in hell after they die.

In case 1, the baby goes straight to Heaven without baptism, and without any of the redeeming suffering we go through here. In case 2, the person is baptized, receives all of the sacraments and fights the good fight throughout their life, and in the end receives exactly what the baby in case 1 received. In case 3, the person loses faith and goes to hell. Again, it does not take a genius to see that the baby in case 1 was the most fortunate of all.

Based on your line of thinking, because a person who has just been baptised and has had no time to commit subsequent mortal sins will immediately go to Heaven and receive the full Beatific vision, it would be an act of mercy to kill that person.

The problem is, neither Jesus nor the Church ever taught that! Murdering someone to ensure his or her salvation has never been an acceptible practice within the Church, period. God’s plans for a person on earth don’t usually end with that person being baptised, and to take the away the gift of life from someone, regardless of where he or she will end up, is evil.

Your argument requires one to believe that one should try to kill ALL people who are in a state of grace. Do you believe that?

 

[Tom317]

Based on your line of thinking, because a person who has just been baptised and has had no time to commit subsequent mortal sins will immediately go to Heaven and receive the full Beatific vision, it would be an act of mercy to kill that person.

The problem is, neither Jesus nor the Church ever taught that! Murdering someone to ensure his or her salvation has never been an acceptible practice within the Church, period. God’s plans for a person on earth don’t usually end with that person being baptised, and to take the away the gift of life from someone, regardless of where he or she will end up, is evil.

Your argument requires one to believe that one should try to kill ALL people who are in a state of grace. Do you believe that?

Exactly. Now you are getting it. God has set the rules, and we cannot bend them just because they make us unconfortable. Murdering an unborn or born person is murder, plain and simple. It is bad for the murdered and for the murderer. God mandated that one is not saved unless one is baptized, God made that rule, not men, and we fall into a huge problem when we start modifying God’s mandated rules and parameters.

It does not matter of we are speaking of born, unborn, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc…God said we MUST be baptized. Period. He did not make exceptions and we cannot make exceptions for Him.

We are NOT free to believe that any person, born or unborn, will go to Heaven and receive the Fullness of the Beatific Vision. We can only hope and pray…nothing more. The teaching or theory of Limbo keeps us on our toes, it tells us that we cannot assume anything.

 

[PapaSquash]

We are NOT free to believe that any person, born or unborn, will go to Heaven and receive the Fullness of the Beatific Vision. We can only hope and pray…nothing more. The teaching or theory of Limbo keeps us on our toes, it tells us that we cannot assume anything.

I agree with this statement. We don’t get to know.

I do think, however, that God has made exceptions. (The good thief has been cited, as well as martyred cathecumens) I am also certain that the basis for his exceptions are far beyond my understanding, and that I should not try to predict them. But there is room for hope.

I think prayer helps, so I should get to work.

 

[Tom317]

I agree with this statement. We don’t get to know.

I do think, however, that God has made exceptions. (The good thief has been cited, as well as martyred cathecumens) I am also certain that the basis for his exceptions are far beyond my understanding, and that I should not try to predict them. But there is room for hope.

I think prayer helps, so I should get to work.

Notice that Jesus did not say the theif would be in Heaven, He said the thief would be in pradise. Limbo is often thought to be a place of eternal happiness, which sounds a lot like Paradise to me.

I have also read that the fullness of the Beatific Vision in Heaven is reserved for faithful Catholics, that is not in the Bible or Tradition, but would seem to make sense imo. That belief ties well with Jesus’ statement that there are many rooms in His Father’s House (perhaps for grace following people of many different religions), with the fullness being granted only to those who followed the full truth to the end of their lives.

 

[carol_marie]

I have also read that the fullness of the Beatific Vision in Heaven is reserved for faithful Catholics, that is not in the Bible or Tradition, but would seem to make sense imo. That belief ties well with Jesus’ statement that there are many rooms in His Father’s House (perhaps for grace following people of many different religions), with the fullness being granted only to those who followed the full truth to the end of their lives.

Tom ~ this different levels of heaven sounds an awful lot like Mormon theology?

 

[Rach620]

It does not matter of we are speaking of born, unborn, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc…God said we MUST be baptized. Period. He did not make exceptions and we cannot make exceptions for Him.

We are NOT free to believe that any person, born or unborn, will go to Heaven and receive the Fullness of the Beatific Vision. We can only hope and pray…nothing more. The teaching or theory of Limbo keeps us on our toes, it tells us that we cannot assume anything.

Hoping and praying is all that the ITC is calling for. If someone misconstrues what they said, then that is their problem, not the ITC’s. These issues are complicated and not easily understood; when they put forth a report that is as clear as they can make it on this difficult issue, are they liable for various misinterpretations of its message? No. And that is often what the media does.

Besides, what of baptism of blood or desire? God is obviously not bound in his power by the sacramental economy; He can work outside of it in extraordinary ways. That is what one might hope for in this situation, recognizing that the stain of original sin weighs on us all, and that its consequences could be most dire for these otherwise innocent unborn, but that we can hope in God’s redeeming grace and superabundant love.

 

[Rach620]

I have also read that the fullness of the Beatific Vision in Heaven is reserved for faithful Catholics, that is not in the Bible or Tradition, but would seem to make sense imo. That belief ties well with Jesus’ statement that there are many rooms in His Father’s House (perhaps for grace following people of many different religions), with the fullness being granted only to those who followed the full truth to the end of their lives.

This seems quite speculative on your part, and shows some sort of misunderstanding of merit and what it earns us in regard to our salvation.

Besides, who can possibly follow the whole truth (unless by that you mean the Catholic faith)? The whole truth cannot be completely revealed to us in this life–that fullness of knowledge is what we attain in the beatific vision! We can only follow the whole truth by the grace of God, never of our own doing.

 

[rlg94086]

The report does not say that, yet a ton of people think it does and they feel comfortable with the false thought that unborn babies automatically go to Heaven. It does not require an official statement from the Church to create a huge scandal, but** it would help for the Church to make a formal statement that it Heaven, Hell, Limbo are all possible for unborn babies**, absent that, most parents will choose Heaven and begin to think baptism is just another reason to throw a party.

Nonsense. The Church does not have to make a formal statement for something we have no absolute knowledge of. It is sufficient to say you must be baptized to go to heaven, but we can hope in the case of innocents who were unable to be baptized before their death.

 

[rlg94086]

We are NOT free to believe that any person, born or unborn, will go to Heaven and receive the Fullness of the Beatific Vision. We can only hope and pray…nothing more. The teaching or theory of Limbo keeps us on our toes, it tells us that we cannot assume anything.

The theory of Limbo is not required for us to hope and pray.

 

[PapaSquash]

Notice that Jesus did not say the theif would be in Heaven, He said the thief would be in pradise. Limbo is often thought to be a place of eternal happiness, which sounds a lot like Paradise to me.

.

He didn’t say heaven but said with me in Paradise.

Maybe because he was going to Limbo while he descended?

I don’t know. I had always assumed Heaven.

 

[cor]

In Catholic theology and dogma there are degrees of the beatific vision. Not all see God to the same degree and glory and it is dependent on one’s merits or vibrancy of charity at death. It is a traditional teaching of theologians that merit ends with death but I personally hope that we can merit more and more and thus see God more and more in the afterlife.

 

[Tom317]

This seems quite speculative on your part, and shows some sort of misunderstanding of merit and what it earns us in regard to our salvation.

Besides, who can possibly follow the whole truth (unless by that you mean the Catholic faith)? The whole truth cannot be completely revealed to us in this life–that fullness of knowledge is what we attain in the beatific vision! We can only follow the whole truth by the grace of God, never of our own doing.

The fullness of truth is found only in the Catholic faith. I was merely posting a speculation that I have read, I am not saying it is truth.

 

[Tom317]

Hoping and praying is all that the ITC is calling for. If someone misconstrues what they said, then that is their problem, not the ITC’s. These issues are complicated and not easily understood; when they put forth a report that is as clear as they can make it on this difficult issue, are they liable for various misinterpretations of its message? No. And that is often what the media does.

Besides, what of baptism of blood or desire? God is obviously not bound in his power by the sacramental economy; He can work outside of it in extraordinary ways. That is what one might hope for in this situation, recognizing that the stain of original sin weighs on us all, and that its consequences could be most dire for these otherwise innocent unborn, but that we can hope in God’s redeeming grace and superabundant love.

I agree to a point. The problem is that the vast majority of the world already thinks the Church has banished Limbo and that all unborn go to Heaven, neither point is true. Limbo is not banished,m nor do we know that unborn babies go to Heaven. The point you are missing, and I feel man, many other are missing as well, is that we live in a world controlled by the media and the media now tells us Limbo is out, babies go to Heaven, baptism is no longer important.

Those are facts, not conjecture and it does severe harm to the body of Christ to allow millions to assume those things.

 

[Tom317]

Tom ~ this different levels of heaven sounds an awful lot like Mormon theology?

Many Catholic mystics and theologians through time have felt the same way. I am not saying it is true, I am saying it makes more sense then claiming baptism means nothing.

 

[Tom317]

Nonsense. The Church does not have to make a formal statement for something we have no absolute knowledge of. It is sufficient to say you must be baptized to go to heaven, but we can hope in the case of innocents who were unable to be baptized before their death.

I agree, and that is my point, we cannot say unborn babies go to Heaven because we do not know. The proper thing to say is that the babies might NOT go to Heaven because they did not receive baptism, but that we can hope they are in some way saved.