Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[rlg94086]

I see…but, did the Baltimore Catechism “annul or supersede” earlier non-limbo teaching?

In a time of terrible confusion in the human dimensions of the Catholic Church, we have to do everything we can to preserve our own faith intact and to help our fellow Catholics preserve theirs intact.

In addition to praying (especially the Rosary), we ought to study the Faith in the Magisterium-approved textbooks of the past. It’s crucial to realize that the Vatican II documents and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not annul or supersede, but merely supplement, the older sources.

One of the best older textbooks for the average Catholic to study is Baltimore* Catechism No. 3*. Here’s what that authoritative textbook says about limbo in question 324:

“Children should be baptized as soon as possible because Baptism is necessary for salvation. Infants who die without baptism of any kind do not suffer the punishments of those who die in mortal sin. They may enjoy a certain natural happiness, but they will not enjoy the supernatural happiness of heaven.”

"A certain natural happiness” is limbo.

“Where can I get a copy of Baltimore* Catechism No. 3*?” Google that title to find online sources for ordering a copy. Do this today.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[carol_marie]

“Children should be baptized as soon as possible because Baptism is necessary for salvation. Infants who die without baptism of any kind do not suffer the punishments of those who die in mortal sin. They may enjoy a certain natural happiness, but they will not enjoy the supernatural happiness of heaven.”
.

I agree that children should be baptized as soon as possible. But if we’re REALLY to believe it’s a matter HEAVEN or NOT …why doesn’t the Church allow baptisms to take place during the season of lent? If it were literally more important than life or death (their eternal destination) for a new baby, why wouldn’t the Priests be available 24/7 at a moment’s notice like they are for last rites? If I were to call my Priest and say, “I had a baby yesterday… can I meet you at the Chruch for his baptism NOW?” I am certain he would say, "Call the parish secretary and schedule it… (we have a LARGE parish) - I know from past experience I’d be waiting several month for one of the two Sundays that baptisms are performed. And that’s AFTER I’ve taken the “class.” It hardly sounds like baptism is of the UTMOST importance - maybe in theory - but not in reality.

And yes, chances are - the baby wouldn’t die prior to waiting the few months - but seriously, who would ever be made to take that chance?

 

[rlg94086]

I understand your view, yet it is dangerous imo. It leads to us thinking that all people can be saved by God, if God desires. While that is a tre thought, it is not one that God has revealed to us. We MUST stick to what God told us, not what we think God would do.

Limbo, or something like it, must remain because it tells Christians that there is a consequence for not being baptized, no matter what the circumstances.
.

So, even though God didn’t reveal Limbo to us, we should believe in it to prevent us from believing in other things God didn’t reveal to us? :whacky:

 

[Tom317]

Not every human. Just those humans who never had the opportunity to know Christ. Before the Muslim, before the Hindu, before all others of which we could never be 100% certain were ignorant through no fault of their own - I am CERTAIN the unborn **never ** had the opportunity.

To assume He wouldn’t send them to heaven is to assume He would send the innocent to hell. That is just impossible to reconcile with a loving God.

That is also a theological construct, and you accept that one because it makes you feel better. However, it is contained nowehere in the Bible or in Tradition. Jesus could not be more clear, if we desire Heaven (the full Beatific Vision), then we must be baptized. Limbo speaks of a place that is neither Heaven, nor hell and may very well be the Paradise spoken of in the Bible.

It is also impossible for many people to reconcile the fact that we die and that death is a consequence of original sin. Yet, the fact is we do die.

 

[rlg94086]

That is also a theological construct, and you accept that one because it makes you feel better. However, it is contained nowehere in the Bible or in Tradition. Jesus could not be more clear, if we desire Heaven (the full Beatific Vision), then we must be baptized. ***Limbo speaks of a place that is neither Heaven, nor hell and may very well be the Paradise spoken of in the Bible. ***

It is also impossible for many people to reconcile the fact that we die and that death is a consequence of original sin. Yet, the fact is we do die.

Now, you may be slipping into serious error.

 

[Tom317]

So, even though God didn’t reveal Limbo to us, we should believe in it to prevent us from believing in other things God didn’t reveal to us? :whacky:

No, you and I do not have to believe in Limbo. What we cannot “believe” is that unborn babies go to Heaven, we can only hope that God has a plan for them, which is what Limbo proposes. Limbo simple supports the truth of original sin and baptism. Its importance lies in its support of those absolute truths.

 

[Tom317]

Now, you may be slipping into serious error.

No. Limbo does speak of a place that is neither Heaven, nor hell, and I never said Limbo is doctrine and must be believed. I am saying that Limbo supports the fact that we cannot believe that unbaptized souls go to Heaven.

 

[carol_marie]

IWe must not try to tell God what He will do. We must assume Jesus (God) meant it went He said we must be baptized. As Catholics we often defend the Real Presence by using John 6 as a proof text, and we say that Jesus let the people leave His side even though His teachings were harsh. It is the same with baptism.

Good point.

But, why don’t we say the Muslims & the Hindus have a chance at LIMBO rather than heaven? No one mentions Limbo for them.

I guess that’s the bottom line for me. I think it is so unfair that a person can live their entire life as a Muslim loving Mohamad but not Jesus, or a Hindu, worshiping trees or whatever and they can go to heaven - but we draw the baptismal line in the sand & say since those babies, to whom baptism was impossible - were not born again, LIMBO makes more sense for them - and anything else, rocks our faith.

I hate that - for my own selfish personal reasons of course. I want MY unborn babies in heaven much more than I want Muslims. OK - wait…

Yes, I want them all to have an opportunity for heaven. But it sounds like the Muslims have a chance - whereas my babies don’t - they have LIMBO.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is not a question of belief, though, right? It is a question of hope that the unborn babies may, through a signal grace of God, somehow be granted the means whereby they can receive (from God) the ordinary baptism which is a prerequisite for salvation, or the extraordinary baptisms (desire or blood), or something else which is prefigured in Scripture (the good thief), to which the Holy Spirit may be leading us at this time, precisely because of the horrendous crimes of abortion.

Remember, if we can ‘hope’ that the unborn victims of abortion can somehow be saved through Christ and through some kind of baptism or other extraordinary means by God, this still does not ‘negate’ the guilt of those who procured the abortion. Murder is still murder, whether the victim is born or unborn, baptized or not baptized.

Twisting and stretching into “because the victims will go to heaven” (which is not what the theologians are even saying) “therefore more abortions will be held” is tantamount to saying that the entire reason we have so many abortions right now is because of the equally twisted and wrong interpretation that ‘quality of life’ is what matters and therefore it is better to be aborted than to be born poor, or sick, or ‘imperfect’.

But nobody is really aborting for any such reason, even if the ‘rationalization’ is out there. People are aborting, in the majority of cases, for convenience and for self. It is more ‘convenient’ for ‘me’ not to have a child in poverty–because this will ‘free’ me by giving me the money I would have ‘wasted’ in caring for this child so I can spend it on ME and keep ME out of poverty.

Even in the cases (and yes I know they exist) where real hardship and real sorrow and real sacrifice would result from a pregnancy–well, that still doesn’t make it ‘right’ to terminate it.

Perhaps my being the mother of a disabled child --a child who would not have been born had I heeded the ‘advice’ of my former OB-GYN to have my tubes tied after my second child–makes me ‘biased’–but it doesn’t, not really. It makes me sympathetic to those who face real hardship through pregnancy but it doesn’t change reality or morality because “I” have a certain experience–nor should it. Abortion and contraception are evils whether they ‘benefit’ in the materialistic sense or by ‘omission’, or not.

 

[Tom317]

Good point.

But, why don’t we say the Muslims & the Hindus have a chance at LIMBO rather than heaven? No one mentions Limbo for them.

I guess that’s the bottom line for me. I think it is so unfair that a person can live their entire life as a Muslim loving Mohamad but not Jesus, or a Hindu, worshiping trees or whatever and they can go to heaven - but we draw the baptismal line in the sand & say since those babies, to whom baptism was impossible - were not born again, LIMBO makes more sense for them - and anything else, rocks our faith.

I hate that - for my own selfish personal reasons of course. I want MY unborn babies in heaven much more than I want Muslims. OK - wait…

Yes, I want them all to have an opportunity for heaven. But it sounds like the Muslims have a chance - whereas my babies don’t - they have LIMBO.

We can hope that Muslims will be saved, just as we can hope that God will bring unborn babies into Heaven. We cannot say that either of them will go to Heaven because in both cases they have not been baptized and do not know Christ as Savior and God. The point here is that we can hope for any number of things, we cannot believe things that go against what God said.

 

[Harsalter]

Elvis is working at a truck stop in Grand Rapids too.

Actually he owns it. But he has a problem with a couple of employees (protestants) showing up for work, so he had no choice but to fill in a few times.

Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much…

 

[Tom317]

It is not a question of belief, though, right? It is a question of hope that the unborn babies may, through a signal grace of God, somehow be granted the means whereby they can receive (from God) the ordinary baptism which is a prerequisite for salvation, or the extraordinary baptisms (desire or blood), or something else which is prefigured in Scripture (the good thief), to which the Holy Spirit may be leading us at this time, precisely because of the horrendous crimes of abortion.

Remember, if we can ‘hope’ that the unborn victims of abortion can somehow be saved through Christ and through some kind of baptism or other extraordinary means by God, this still does not ‘negate’ the guilt of those who procured the abortion. Murder is still murder, whether the victim is born or unborn, baptized or not baptized.

Twisting and stretching into “because the victims will go to heaven” (which is not what the theologians are even saying) “therefore more abortions will be held” is tantamount to saying that the entire reason we have so many abortions right now is because of the equally twisted and wrong interpretation that ‘quality of life’ is what matters and therefore it is better to be aborted than to be born poor, or sick, or ‘imperfect’.

But nobody is really aborting for any such reason, even if the ‘rationalization’ is out there. People are aborting, in the majority of cases, for convenience and for self. It is more ‘convenient’ for ‘me’ not to have a child in poverty–because this will ‘free’ me by giving me the money I would have ‘wasted’ in caring for this child so I can spend it on ME and keep ME out of poverty.

Even in the cases (and yes I know they exist) where real hardship and real sorrow and real sacrifice would result from a pregnancy–well, that still doesn’t make it ‘right’ to terminate it.

Perhaps my being the mother of a disabled child --a child who would not have been born had I heeded the ‘advice’ of my former OB-GYN to have my tubes tied after my second child–makes me ‘biased’–but it doesn’t, not really. It makes me sympathetic to those who face real hardship through pregnancy but it doesn’t change reality or morality because “I” have a certain experience–nor should it. Abortion and contraception are evils whether they ‘benefit’ in the materialistic sense or by ‘omission’, or not.

If people get the false notion that baptism is not required, and that all unborn babies go to Heaven (full Beatific Vision), then they will feel a great justification for aborting their babies. They will not rush out to abort, but they sure will never feel any remorse for doing so because they will believe that the baby is in Heaven. And, by extension, baptism and original sin becomes meaningless.

 

[carol_marie]

We can hope that Muslims will be saved, just as we can hope that God will bring unborn babies into Heaven. We cannot say that either of them will go to Heaven because in both cases they have not been baptized and do not know Christ as Savior and God. The point here is that we can hope for any number of things, we cannot believe things that go against what God said.

Why was the theory of Limbo only for the babies though - and not for the other unbaptized people - (Muslims, Hindus … etc.) The others have always had the hope of heaven. (even if it were a longshot)

 

[Rach620]

No, you and I do not have to believe in Limbo. What we cannot “believe” is that unborn babies go to Heaven, we can only hope that God has a plan for them, which is what Limbo proposes. Limbo simple supports the truth of original sin and baptism. Its importance lies in its support of those absolute truths.

Limbo proposes a certain kind of plan: a plan of perfect natural happiness. It is in keeping with the importance of original sin and its removal by baptism.

This new document gives good reasons why we can **hope **(not **know **for certain, as in ‘believe,’) that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, even outside that sacramental economy. All that it admits is that we cannot know what God, in His infinite love, mercy, and wisdom, intends for these murdered innocents.

NO ONE is proposing we throw original sin and baptism out the window, and no one comes close to doing that by merely giving reasons why it is acceptable to hope for their salvation.

 

[Harsalter]

We can hope that Muslims will be saved, just as we can hope that God will bring unborn babies into Heaven.

The justice scale on these two are overwhelmingly tilting on the side of babies here.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for a second in hopes of Muslims. Most want Christians dead and have been trying to get it done for centuries.

Apples and oranges if you ask me.

 

[rlg94086]

No, you and I do not have to believe in Limbo. What we cannot “believe” is that unborn babies go to Heaven, we can only hope that God has a plan for them, which is what Limbo proposes. Limbo simple supports the truth of original sin and baptism. Its importance lies in its support of those absolute truths.

I leave “absolute truths” in God’s hands. Quite frankly, He can allow anyone into heaven He wants to - baptized or non-baptized. He has no limitations.

 

[carol_marie]

If people get the false notion that baptism is not required, and that all unborn babies go to Heaven (full Beatific Vision), then they will feel a great justification for aborting their babies. They will not rush out to abort, but they sure will never feel any remorse for doing so because they will believe that the baby is in Heaven. And, by extension, baptism and original sin becomes meaningless.

You are assuming they think of them as babies - they don’t - which is why they don’t feel any remorse. They don’t need to justify anything - I don’t think they care beyond themselves.

Also, those who abort later in their term and do think of them as babies no doubt already believe they go to heaven anyhow. The only people who would care about the heaven/limbo/hell option are people, who, in my opinion probably wouldn’t consider an abortion.

 

[Tom317]

Why was the explanation of Limbo only for the babies though - and not for the other unbaptized people - (Muslims, Hindus … etc.) The others have always had the hope of heaven. (even if it were a longshot)

The Church says they can hope for Heaven, just as we can hope aborted babies go to Heaven, it does not say they will enter Heaven.

There is a critical difference between hope and belief. In one case we personally hope for a given result (babies going to Heaven), without really knowing it will happen.

In the second case, we truly believe that God will take a certain action and feel assured it will happen (baptized babies who die will go to Heaven).

In that first case, we are left with a feeling of not being sure, which causes our instincts to kick-in and we use that instinct to baptize our babies asap and to raise them in the faith.

We believe God can do whatever He please, yet we do not know He will, so we must hope that certain peoples and babies will go to Heaven.

All of that protects baptism and original sin.

 

[Rach620]

If people get the false notion that baptism is not required, and that all unborn babies go to Heaven (full Beatific Vision), then they will feel a great justification for aborting their babies. They will not rush out to abort, but they sure will never feel any remorse for doing so because they will believe that the baby is in Heaven. And, by extension, baptism and original sin becomes meaningless.

You’re assuming that those who abort actually understand that what they are aborting is a child. That is most certainly not usually the case.

The justification for abortion is precisely that what is being killed is not human, a person, a child with a soul. Remember, “it’s just a blob of cells” or some such nonsense. So no one has any concern whatsoever for the eternal fate of the person being killed.

Unless you’re aware of documented cases in which Catholics aborted because they thought it would be better for their child to go to heaven than to live on earth, I think this argument is deeply flawed.

 

[rlg94086]

The Church says they can hope for Heaven, just as we can hope aborted babies go to Heaven, it does not say they will enter Heaven.

There is a critical difference between hope and belief. In one case we personally hope for a given result (babies going to Heaven), without really knowing it will happen.

In the second case, we truly believe that God will take a certain action and feel assured it will happen (baptized babies who die will go to Heaven).

In that first case, we are left with a feeling of not being sure, which causes our instincts to kick-in and we use that instinct to baptize our babies asap and to raise them in the faith.

**We believe God can do whatever He please, yet we do not know He will, so we must hope that certain peoples and babies will go to Heaven. **

All of that protects baptism and original sin.

Yea! We agree 100%…no need for Limbo.