D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
or is this in the rummor stage?
- Status
T
Tom317
Guest
No. Limbo is being studied by the Church. A statement if somekind might come from Pope with months to a year.
C
carol_marie
Guest
No idea what the technical terms are… but I thought “limbo” was never a set in stone sort of thing? So there’s nothing to drop… except maybe they’ve said, nevermind about that Limbo business… which is fine by me since I thought it was ridiculous that a miscarried baby would be in a hell - like area without the fire. That’s how limbo was explained to me.
No way.
T
Tom317
Guest
Jesus mandate baptism and said no-one enters the kingdom unless they are baptized. He did not qualify His command. So, we can place our own thoughts all we want, but it does not change what Christ ordered.
Limbo is not dropped and may not be dropped at all, perhaps just expanded or explained.
M
mchale
Guest
Oh no… here we go again…
Long and short of it is, we don’t know, we might hope that unbaptized infants might be saved somehow, but then again they might not.
–
Bill
Long and short of it is, we don’t know, we might hope that unbaptized infants might be saved somehow, but then again they might not.
–
Bill
C
carol_marie
Guest
This is what amazes me. It seems that whenever the subject of miscarried, unbaptized babies comes up, there are all kinds of posters who remind us that baptism is necessary… Christ ordered it… seems like there’s no wiggle room around it.
Fine.
But then whenever there’s a thread about Muslims or Atheists or Buddists or Hindus or whatever religion that doesn’t baptize, there are just as many posters who say, “HEY… no saying those “good” people go to hell… just because they didn’t get baptized - believe in Jesus… whatever.” If they are “good” and followed their own religion - God will not turn them away… blah blah blah.
So I guess it’s just the innocent babies we send to the hell-like limbo?
(and yes, this is personal for me since according to your interpretation, I have 6 babies in the hellish place?!
)Not that I believe for a second that’s where my Lord sent them.
T
Tom317
Guest
You have never read me say anything like that about other religions. Also, Limbo, from all descriptions, is a place of extraordinary happiness, not a hellish place as you imply. The souls in Limbo do not enjoy the full joy of the beatific vision, but there are those who have stated souls in Limbo would enjoy the happiness of paradise…not exactly horrible.This is what amazes me. It seems that whenever the subject of miscarried, unbaptized babies comes up, there are all kinds of posters who remind us that baptism is necessary… Christ ordered it… seems like there’s no wiggle room around it.
Fine.
But then whenever there’s a thread about Muslims or Atheists or Buddists or Hindus or whatever religion that doesn’t baptize, there are just as many posters who say, “HEY… no saying those “good” people go to hell… just because they didn’t get baptized - believe in Jesus… whatever.” If they are “good” and followed their own religion - God will not turn them away… blah blah blah.
So I guess it’s just the innocent babies we send to the hell-like limbo?
(and yes, this is personal for me since according to your interpretation, I have 6 babies in the hellish place?!
Not that I believe for a second that’s where my Lord sent them.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
Peace to you, carol anne.This is what amazes me. It seems that whenever the subject of miscarried, unbaptized babies comes up, there are all kinds of posters who remind us that baptism is necessary… Christ ordered it… seems like there’s no wiggle room around it.
Fine.
But then whenever there’s a thread about Muslims or Atheists or Buddists or Hindus or whatever religion that doesn’t baptize, there are just as many posters who say, “HEY… no saying those “good” people go to hell… just because they didn’t get baptized - believe in Jesus… whatever.” If they are “good” and followed their own religion - God will not turn them away… blah blah blah.
So I guess it’s just the innocent babies we send to the hell-like limbo?
(and yes, this is personal for me since according to your interpretation, I have 6 babies in the hellish place?!
Not that I believe for a second that’s where my Lord sent them.
Infosar as the baptism of desire relates to those people of other faiths, there are two major qualifiers, namely invisible ignorance, which in centuries past could occur quite possibly, but not so much now in the globalized world, and an act of moral positivism, desiring to act in a manner consistent with the natural law despite not knowing God. This could perhaps be regarded as “the examination of a good conscience towards God” as spoken of by Peter in his first epistle. I would argue that such a positive act (positive in the sense of deliberately with full consent, not unlike the requirement for mortal sin) could not be attributed to a creature that has no conscious conception of God, and as such has no faculty for good conscience toward its creator.
As far as your description of limbo, as it is a theory, it depends on who you ask. I have always taken the Augustinian conception of limbo, that those children that die without baptism enjoy an eternal state of natural happiness apart from beatific vision.
L
leonie
Guest
Carolmarie, I’ve noticed that it is usually men who are big proponents of the “theory” of unbaptized babies in limbo. I have lost a baby too, and just as I long for that baby, I cannot believe that God would not also long for his babies, too.
When Jesus descended into Limbo to take the righteous to Heaven, they weren’t baptized with water. What did He do, take them from one limbo to another? No, He bestowed on them a Baptism of desire. Unborn babies that have never had actual sin, never fallen to temptation–who better to receive a Baptism of desire?
I doubt that the Pope will say anything definitive because God has not revealed anything new.
It is my belief that God brings unborn babies into His presence.
When Jesus descended into Limbo to take the righteous to Heaven, they weren’t baptized with water. What did He do, take them from one limbo to another? No, He bestowed on them a Baptism of desire. Unborn babies that have never had actual sin, never fallen to temptation–who better to receive a Baptism of desire?
I doubt that the Pope will say anything definitive because God has not revealed anything new.
It is my belief that God brings unborn babies into His presence.
M
mosher
Guest
Minor corrections and some additions.
First, the term is invincible ignorance.
Second, St. Augustin argued against a natural state of happiness for those in Limbo but rather argued for some form of suffering if only in a mild form. This position was rejected by Pope Innocent III in favor of the Eastern Fathers’ teaching that they did not suffer in Limbo but enjoined a natural state of happiness.
I would add to the conversation that we are not allowed to not believe in Limbo on some level. It is one of those things that has been posited by the Church for belief but does not carry the theological level of authority to be declared a formal doctrine of the Church. However, the Fathers of the Church seem to be united in the belief that there is some form of Limbo but they do not agree about the nature of Limbo is some respects.
We need to also add that parents who would have baptized their children and would have acted in good faith as to the laws of the Church but could not because of an miscarriage may not find that Limbo is the proper place for their children. Many credible theologians working off the documents of Trent and other councils and Father’s of the Church have noted that their desire to baptize their child would have acted as a sort of baptism of desire by proxy. Thus, there is much room to discuss in favor of these souls being present to the Blessed Trinity.
The allowance for theological speculation on this issue does not provide us a right to deny it as it is the logical conclusion of two dogmas that must be believed. However, to discuss the value of the teaching and the validity of the teaching is permissible. However, such discussion does not imply and outright denial. To do so would be to lack prudence and judgment.
M
mosher
Guest
I think that the reason why you see less women than men supporting the teaching on Limbo is multifaceted. First, there is a general misunderstanding on the teachings concerning Limbo by most people today. Secondarily I think there is a psychological reason that causes this difference because men do not have the same level of emotional attachment as women do to children at that level of development. This is many ways causes men to be able to approach the issue better because it lacks those strong emotional attachments.
For instance you can see that most arguments made by women (and men) are usually appeals to an emotional argument and not necessarily a reasoned argument. Men tend to discount this emotional appeal or accept it on a whim. However, the issue must be looked at with prudence and wisdom. There is nothing wrong with the current teaching as it is a great act of mercy. We must remember that at some level all humans deserve hell and it is only by the free gift of salvation through the means given that we are able to return to God. So, if God has set aside a place that does not include the suffering of the senses to some who were unbaptized it can only be as an act of mercy and justice. However, to say that God allows all unbaptized children or not) into heaven does violence to the nature of God in His justice.
Also, as I stated in another post there is a strong argument that many children do not go to Limbo through the baptism of desire by proxy of their parents.
On that note we must remember that baptism of desire is not something that is done to another but rather the baptism of desire is a disposition of a person who dies before they are able to be baptized. The two things are very different. So, when Christ descend into Sheol He did not impart on them a baptism of desire but rather those who were justified by a baptism of desire were free to enter heaven but those who did not have this disposition were relegated to hell.
T
Tom317
Guest
I am a man, I believe in Limbo and I have two children that past this world without baptism and I pray for them every single day.
Generalizations rarely are fair.
Generalizations rarely are fair.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
First, apologies to carol marie, for calling her by the wrong name. 
Chalk it up to Halloween (Poltergeist movies being played late night) and a severe lack of sleep. Again, my apologies
mosher:
mosher:
mosher:
Chalk it up to Halloween (Poltergeist movies being played late night) and a severe lack of sleep. Again, my apologiesQuite right…it’s been a long and terrible day…I’m afraid my inner proofreader slipped himself a valium and passed out about six hours ago.
Goodness, how could I have made such an error. I meant of course Thomas Aquinas.
I agree…while I’m not 100% convinced that it falls under ordinary magisterium, I certainly cannot deny the idea. I guess this is why we’re lucky to have the Holy Father working in unity with the bishops!
I don’t deny this. But this is a rather strict caveat, as many progressives don’t even see the need for pedobaptism, and certainly this is the case where most evangelical Protestants are concerned
If by this you mean that we cannot deny limbo, then while I would agree on a personal level, but would proceed on this track with caution as it has not been infallibly defined.
C
carol_marie
Guest
Why must the Church say there is a limbo? The Church doesn’t say where anyone else ends up, with the exception of Saints.
If my dear Mother were to die today, I seriously doubt anyone would insist that she is in hell - even though he hasn’t been to mass in forever. Everyone would say that God is merciful and I should trust Him. So I could pray for her & hang onto a scrap of hope that I’ll see her again - even if I won’t.
Not so with my babies though. I have to accept that I’ll NEVER see the babies again… because there’s no way I’d end up in limbo. Where’s my hope?
Now I’m not about to tell God how to do His job… if He wants Limbo - so be it. But since we really don’t know… why can’t we just let it go and treat those babies like everyone else… leaving them up to God’s mercy?
If my dear Mother were to die today, I seriously doubt anyone would insist that she is in hell - even though he hasn’t been to mass in forever. Everyone would say that God is merciful and I should trust Him. So I could pray for her & hang onto a scrap of hope that I’ll see her again - even if I won’t.
Not so with my babies though. I have to accept that I’ll NEVER see the babies again… because there’s no way I’d end up in limbo. Where’s my hope?
Now I’m not about to tell God how to do His job… if He wants Limbo - so be it. But since we really don’t know… why can’t we just let it go and treat those babies like everyone else… leaving them up to God’s mercy?
S
Sam88
Guest
I see no reason to assume that all those in heaven, or all those not in hell, experience the same circumstances or rewards. Although all such will obviously be treated in accordance with justice and mercy, there is no reason to assume any particular kind of equality. So I find no difficulty in believing that some saints are more highly exaulted than others, and there is some evidence that this is the case. Of course, we do not know about this in any detail, so I refrain from too much speculation.
Even those in the lowest “circle” of heaven however (whatever that might mean), are supremely happy, more than we can currently understand, and do not wish to be any other place. So the image of the afterlife consisting of exactly two, or three, states would seem to probably be a oversimplification.
We can assume that unbaptised but innocent infants are treated by God in accordance with his mercy and love. This does not require us to believe that they are in the same state as Mary or St. Peter for example. When we get to heaven, it will become clear to all that all are in the right place. Until then, it is time to trust in God’s wisdom that he has made the best provision for each person.
Even those in the lowest “circle” of heaven however (whatever that might mean), are supremely happy, more than we can currently understand, and do not wish to be any other place. So the image of the afterlife consisting of exactly two, or three, states would seem to probably be a oversimplification.
We can assume that unbaptised but innocent infants are treated by God in accordance with his mercy and love. This does not require us to believe that they are in the same state as Mary or St. Peter for example. When we get to heaven, it will become clear to all that all are in the right place. Until then, it is time to trust in God’s wisdom that he has made the best provision for each person.
C
carol_marie
Guest
I didn’t know there were different “circles” to heaven. Isn’t that a Mormon type thing?
(I did appreciate your thought that we all - babies included - end up in the right place. That does provide some measure of comfort)
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
I’ll have to bring out Ott’s Fundamentals, but I think there are different levels of reward in heaven. All in heaven will be as happy as they are able to be, but for instance, Mary is happier than we will be because of her sinless life and total acceptance of God’s will but others in heaven won’t feel a lack of happiness because they will be as perfectly happy as their state allows them to be.
Thus, it will not matter what happens to other people (i.e. unbaptized babies, family members who didn’t exactly live a good Catholic life, Hitler, Judas, etc. ad naseaum) because if we make it to heaven and thus experience the Beatific Vision, we will have as perfect of an understanding of God’s supreme Justice and Mercy. Assuming we are in heaven, if those aforementioned people are in heaven with us-good for them and us. If they are in *Limbus puerorum *(unbaptized babies) or in hell (Hitler for instance) then God be praised in His almighty Justice and Mercy.
*As an aside, there are theoretically two “limbos”-the limbus puerorum (basically, ‘limbo of the children’) and the limbus patrem (basically, ‘limbo of the Fathers’-the ‘hell’ Jesus descended to after He died and before His Resurrection).
Therefore, I personally think silence should prevail on the matter. It has been long standing tradition that a limbo exists, I believe Pope Pius VI even said something to that effect against the illegitimate Synod of Pistoia and many of the Fathers and others teach similarly.
We know very well that Baptism is required for Salvation. I think it is imprudent to say too much on the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants because of the heretical theological implications that can be derived from this sort of statement. We don’t even need to promote limbo, but just leave it at “We don’t know for absolute sure” and find out someday. It is not worth the potential problems in order to get some warm n’ fuzzy points.
Thus, it will not matter what happens to other people (i.e. unbaptized babies, family members who didn’t exactly live a good Catholic life, Hitler, Judas, etc. ad naseaum) because if we make it to heaven and thus experience the Beatific Vision, we will have as perfect of an understanding of God’s supreme Justice and Mercy. Assuming we are in heaven, if those aforementioned people are in heaven with us-good for them and us. If they are in *Limbus puerorum *(unbaptized babies) or in hell (Hitler for instance) then God be praised in His almighty Justice and Mercy.
*As an aside, there are theoretically two “limbos”-the limbus puerorum (basically, ‘limbo of the children’) and the limbus patrem (basically, ‘limbo of the Fathers’-the ‘hell’ Jesus descended to after He died and before His Resurrection).
Therefore, I personally think silence should prevail on the matter. It has been long standing tradition that a limbo exists, I believe Pope Pius VI even said something to that effect against the illegitimate Synod of Pistoia and many of the Fathers and others teach similarly.
We know very well that Baptism is required for Salvation. I think it is imprudent to say too much on the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants because of the heretical theological implications that can be derived from this sort of statement. We don’t even need to promote limbo, but just leave it at “We don’t know for absolute sure” and find out someday. It is not worth the potential problems in order to get some warm n’ fuzzy points.
C
corvidae
Guest
I believe it is more a Dante Aligheri thing.
In the Divine Comedy, Dante talks to the lowest saint, the one who is least among those in heaven and asks why she is not unhappy.
Her reply
From spot to spot throughout the realm, to all the realm is pleasing
I belive that is paraphrasing,
But circles of heaven, and circles of hell is a Catholic’s idea
A lone Raven
M
mosher
Guest
While Dante imposed his own ideas in his cosmology in The Comedy it is founded in good Catholic Theology. We know that not all are equal per se in heaven but rather the more we are disposed to charity on this earth the greater we can be filled by God’s love in heaven. Likewise the more depraved we are the lower in hell we descend. These terms of higher and lower are used to express proximity to God. So, it is right to say that the Blessed Mother is the closest to God and the great saints follow in line. I think for our time it is easy to think of heaven as a large football stadium. If I make it into the nose-bleed section I will be very happy.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
I have my 1949 Father Connell’s Baltimore Catechism No. 3, and it says that Limbo is a state a perfect natural happiness,
not a hell-without-the-fire scenario.
And if Limbo exists, that doesn’t mean that parents in heaven won’t be able to visit their children and other relatives in Limbo, any more than the fact that Mary is in Heaven stops her from periodically visiting the Earth.
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
not a hell-without-the-fire scenario.
And if Limbo exists, that doesn’t mean that parents in heaven won’t be able to visit their children and other relatives in Limbo, any more than the fact that Mary is in Heaven stops her from periodically visiting the Earth.
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
- Status