Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[Tom317]

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.

Not true. Millions of women have had incredible pain and remorse about their abortions and are now part of the pro-life movement. They knew what they did even as they walked out of the clinic, they knew they helped kill their baby. Sure, a certain percentage will never let the truth in, yet most women do feel the pain, they would not feel the pain if it was just a clump of cells to them. By attacking Baptism and Original sin, aborting babies just becomes easier for all of those women who do agonize over the decision, they will justify it by saying “hey, my baby is now in Heaven.”

 

[Tom317]

Yea! We agree 100%…no need for Limbo.

Cute.

But wrong.

Limbo is needed so people understand the cnetral importance of baptism and original sin. Yet, you do not accept that because you already know the importance of those truths, most people are willing to be swayed either way and if Limbo goes, so does Baptism and Original Sin.

 

[Tom317]

Bottom line:

No Limbo = Aborted babies go straight to the full Beatific Vision in Heaven. No consequences for the action.
.
.
.
Which = Baptism is not required for salvation.
.
.
.
Which = Original sin does place a stain on our souls.
.
.
.
Which = Abortion is a good thing.

 

[carol_marie]

Tom ~ Thank you for your insight. You’ve given me much to think about.

In the end, you and I agree … it is all left up to our Most Merciful God - as it should be.

God Bless,
CM

 

[rlg94086]

Cute.

But wrong.

Limbo is needed so people understand the cnetral importance of baptism and original sin. Yet, you do not accept that because you already know the importance of those truths, most people are willing to be swayed either way and if Limbo goes, so does Baptism and Original Sin.

So, you are saying belief in Limbo is required because some people don’t understand our beliefs? That makes sense.

I don’t think teaching about Limbo prevents people from turning away from the Truth of Baptism anymore than teaching them about hope does. I have met many, many cradle Catholics who didn’t Baptize their babies right away because they weren’t worried about it. Whether they believed in Limbo (some did) or hoped that God received unbaptized babies into heaven (some did) or both (many did) is irrellevant. Error is error. Teaching non-revealed, non-doctrinal theories won’t prevent it, nor will it cause more error.

 

[Rach620]

Not true. Millions of women have had incredible pain and remorse about their abortions and are now part of the pro-life movement. They knew what they did even as they walked out of the clinic, they knew they helped kill their baby.

That might be the case for a few, but I would say that the vast majority of post-abortive women only realize later what the abortion actually meant for them and their child.

Abortion is not (only) about the child; it is about the woman who believes the violence she is doing not only to the baby but to *herself *is her only option. When making the decision to abort, the concerns of the unborn baby very rarely come in to the decision-making process.

 

[Tom317]

Tom ~ Thank you for your insight. You’ve given me much to think about.

In the end, you and I agree … it is all left up to our Most Merciful God - as it should be.

God Bless,
CM

Thanks, and may God bless you.

 

[rlg94086]

Bottom line:

No Limbo = Aborted babies go straight to the full Beatific Vision in Heaven. No consequences for the action.

And, this is where all of your arguments fall apart. No one is teaching that. They are saying we can “hope.” You are jumping to false conclusions because you start with a faulty premise.

 

[Rach620]

Limbo is needed so people understand the cnetral importance of baptism and original sin. Yet, you do not accept that because you already know the importance of those truths, most people are willing to be swayed either way and if Limbo goes, so does Baptism and Original Sin.

I still don’t really buy this argument.

The way limbo is portrayed in the media, I think most people dismiss it out of hand as some sort of antiquated explanation for what happens to unbaptized babies. They don’t recognize that it is tied in to the understanding of baptism and original sin in the least. They already believe it has no place in the Church.

 

[Tom317]

That might be the case for a few, but I would say that the vast majority of post-abortive women only realize later what the abortion actually meant for them and their child.

Abortion is not (only) about the child; it is about the woman who believes the violence she is doing not only to the baby but to *herself *is her only option. When making the decision to abort, the concerns of the unborn baby very rarely come in to the decision-making process.

I know of cases where that is just not true, but even if we suppose you are right, attacking baptism still makes it easier. The one thing we can probably agree on is that women tend to find ways to justify the slaughter of their babies, and reducing baptism to meaningless would certainly be one more thing to assit them in their horrible action.

 

[Tom317]

I still don’t really buy this argument.

The way limbo is portrayed in the media, I think most people dismiss it out of hand as some sort of antiquated explanation for what happens to unbaptized babies. They don’t recognize that it is tied in to the understanding of baptism and original sin in the least. They already believe it has no place in the Church.

Perhaps. However, the point here is that the Church has held it as a sound theory for many, many centuries, which has lead Priests to insist babies be baptized, and it has also been a huge “Catholic” weapon against abortion (along with many other things). If the Church formally says unborn babies go to Heaven, pack your bags because the great apostasy is upon us.

[of course, the Church is not, and will not say that]

 

[Rach620]

Perhaps. However, the point here is that the Church has held it as a sound theory for many, many centuries, which has lead Priests to insist babies be baptized, and it has also been a huge “Catholic” weapon against abortion (along with many other things). If the Church formally says unborn babies go to Heaven, pack your bags because the great apostasy is upon us.

[of course, the Church is not, and will not say that]

Right, and that is EXACTLY what they said in this statement on limbo. That we can never know for certain that these unbaptized babies are enjoying the beatific vision, but may hope and pray that by the grace of a merciful God that they are.

The Church will never formally declare that baptism is not necessary for salvation–and she is not even coming close to doing so here.

 

[rlg94086]

Perhaps. However, the point here is that the Church has held it as a sound theory for many, many centuries, which has lead Priests to insist babies be baptized, and it has also been a huge “Catholic” weapon against abortion (along with many other things). If the Church formally says unborn babies go to Heaven, pack your bags because the great apostasy is upon us.

[of course, the Church is not, and will not say that]

Limbo has led priests to insist babies be baptized??? So, if not for Limbo, the priests would not have insisted? They didn’t insist on baptizing babies before Limbo was theorized?

Our whole Church hinges on Limbo? We are doomed.

 

[Tom317]

Right, and that is EXACTLY what they said in this statement on limbo. That we can never know for certain that these unbaptized babies are enjoying the beatific vision, but may hope and pray that by the grace of a merciful God that they are.

The Church will never formally declare that baptism is not necessary for salvation–and she is not even coming close to doing so here.

I agree. Yet, the Church is moving towards saying that Limbo can be removed as a theory, while also saying we can hope the unborn will go to Heaven. Those are accurate statements, but very poorly advised. There is no reason to remove Limbo because the Church does not KNOW if Limbo exists or not, it does know that Christ mandated Baptism. Now, the point to ponder is that the Church should not be trying to support beliefs in people that are not true, and by attack Limbo, the Church has also attacked Baptism, even though it did not intend to do so…a horrible misstep imo. The Church should have left the matter as it has been for nearly all of history, there was no need to delve into Limbo, and to expose Baptism to attack.

 

[rlg94086]

Right, and that is EXACTLY what they said in this statement on limbo. That we can never know for certain that these unbaptized babies are enjoying the beatific vision, but may hope and pray that by the grace of a merciful God that they are.

The Church will never formally declare that baptism is not necessary for salvation–and she is not even coming close to doing so here.

 

[Tom317]

Limbo has led priests to insist babies be baptized??? So, if not for Limbo, the priests would not have insisted? They didn’t insist on baptizing babies before Limbo was theorized?

Our whole Church hinges on Limbo? We are doomed.

See, you are placing words in my statement that are not there, just as many people are already saying things about Baptism and Limbo that are not there. Be very, very careful placing words where there are none.

I never said the only reason for mandating infant baptism was Limbo. Walk softly friend.

 

[Tom317]

To all,

Thanks for pressing me on this subject. I think I have placed my view well enough on this thread. I am tired of pounding the keyboard (for now), and will return some time in the future.

God Bless and thanks to all for the feisty talk.

 

[rlg94086]

See, you are placing words in my statement that are not there, just as many people are already saying things about Baptism and Limbo that are not there. Be very, very careful placing words where there are none.

I never said the only reason for mandating infant baptism was Limbo. Walk softly friend.

Actually, I asked you questions, so I couldn’t have placed words in any of your statements.

You said:

Perhaps. However, the point here is that the Church has held it as a sound theory for many, many centuries, which has lead Priests to insist babies be baptized.

This is a logical statement of cause and effect - “Church has held [limbo]…sound theory” - “WHICH (emphasis mine) has lead (sp) Priest to insist babies be baptized.”

My first question was to clarify your statement: “Limbo has led priests to insist babies be baptized???” Now, did you or did you not mean to say (as you stated) that the theory of Limbo led priests to insist that babies be baptized?

If you did intend to say that, then I posed some follow-up questions: “So, if not for Limbo, the priests would not have insisted? They didn’t insist on baptizing babies before Limbo was theorized?”

Those are not attibuting statements to you, they are challenging your erroneous statement that Limbo led priests to insist babies be baptized.

Now, since you haven’t answered any of those simple questions, I will assume you were just clumsy when you wrote your original sentence. English is a tough language, but we can all have hope in mastering it someday (but that does not mean we should believe that everyone will master it).

My final question: “Our whole Church hinges on Limbo? We are doomed. ” was rhetorical, thus the sarcasm smiley. It requires no answer, as it was commentary on your posts that infer that the whole fabric of the Church will fall apart if Limbo is eliminated.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Those who are sure that all unbaptized infants go to heaven would be more logical if they were also to say that infant Baptism should be suppressed.

What, apart from the removal of original sin, is the primary and essential rationale for baptizing babies?

Over the centuries, the Church has impressed on the faithful the urgent duty of baptizing infants, and this urgency has nothing to do with the desire to provide an occasion for a family celebration. (Does God establish sacraments to help the catering industry?) Instead, the serious obligation of conferring infant Baptism exists because of original sin, which is an obstacle preventing the infant from attaining supernatural happiness in heaven should he or she die before becoming capable of baptism of desire.

Hence, my question to anti-limbo people is this: why aren’t you proposing the abolition of infant Baptism?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[carol_marie]

What, apart from the removal of original sin, is the primary and essential rationale for baptizing babies?

.

Well, as you mentioned there’s the fun party afterwards.

No, only kidding. Seriously, the only reason is the one you mentioned. Well, isn’t it also that they become members of the Church?

I would never suggest that baptism of babies be done away with. Obviously it’s necessary for salvation. However, I think an exception is made for babies who’s parents would’ve baptized but we unable to because they died in utero or shortly after birth before baptism was possible. Otherwise I believe the most dangerous time for anyone throughout their entire lives is from the moment of conception until they are born because there is literally NOTHING that can be done to get them to heaven.

Many have said that baptism replaced circumcision. I’m curious as to where the Jews thought their babies who died prior to circumcisum went?