Do you believe with utmost certainty that unbaptized babies go to Heaven?

[rogergosselin]

No, Limbo is NOT official church teaching. It is theological speculation.

I’ve just noticed that the forum message headings state the religion of the posters. I am a bit embarrassed to see that not all are Catholic, and some of my previous responses have made this assumption.

However, PRmerger, you are listed as Roman Catholic, and you have just professed a belief which is specifically condemned by Pope Pius VI. That is “false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools” and just plain heresy! I hope you do not remain obstinate in the face of Papal authority.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I’ve just noticed that the forum message headings state the religion of the posters. I am a bit embarrassed to see that not all are Catholic, and some of my previous responses have made this assumption.

However, PRmerger, you are listed as Roman Catholic, and you have just professed a belief which is specifically condemned by Pope Pius VI. That is “false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools” and just plain heresy! I hope you do not remain obstinate in the face of Papal authority.

No. Stating that the idea of limbo is infallible Catholic doctrine is false. You can believe that this is the fate of unbaptized infants, but it is not actual doctrine, and you should not be criticizing other Catholics for believing otherwise.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[PRmerger]

However, PRmerger, you are listed as Roman Catholic, and you have just professed a belief which is specifically condemned by Pope Pius VI. That is “false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools” and just plain heresy! I hope you do not remain obstinate in the face of Papal authority.

You have been duped, roger, into believing a lie.

Limbo is NOT dogma, doctrine, discipline…it is theological speculation only.

It is not in our Catechism. It is, in fact, officially noted in the document previously cited, to have NEVER been a revealed teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

No. Stating that the idea of limbo is infallible Catholic doctrine is false.

Egg-zactly.

 

[dronald]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
PRmerger;12677165:

You have been duped, roger, into believing a lie.

Limbo is NOT dogma, doctrine, discipline…it is theological speculation only.

It is not in our Catechism. It is, in fact, officially noted in the document previously cited, to have NEVER been a revealed teaching.

How is this reconciled?

Out of context? Never said? Doesn’t matter?

 

[PRmerger]

rogergosselin;12676371:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Pope Eugene’s statement isn’t to be interpreted as “therefore, the unbaptized go to Limbo.” Limbo isn’t even mentioned in the text.

And Pope Pius’s statement simply judged a statement as not being heretical.

That’s NOT the same thing as endorsing it. Nor is even close to proclaiming it as a DOGMA.

That’s just gaga lala nonsense.

How is this reconciled?

Out of context? Never said? Doesn’t matter?

 

[PRmerger]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

How is this reconciled?

Out of context? Never said? Doesn’t matter?

Pope Eugene’s statement isn’t to be interpreted as “therefore, the unbaptized go to Limbo.” Limbo isn’t even mentioned in the text.

And Pope Pius’s statement simply judged a statement as not being heretical.

That’s NOT the same thing as endorsing it. Nor is even close to proclaiming it as a DOGMA.

That’s just gaga lala nonsense.

 

[meltzerboy]

I want to dive deeper into this…

Assuming the Catholic position is correct, shouldn’t the Jews know about it? Do Jews have the same concept of original sin in Babies, and why not? Their tradition has existed for quite a while, shouldn’t they have similar beliefs?

This is what I’ve been getting at. The CC will not ever make a statement like this ever again. Whatever happened to this sort of boldness?

Were these men out to lunch?

In several ways, Jews do have similar beliefs to Catholics regarding G-d, His justice, and His mercy. After all, Christians have Jewish roots. But since we have different faiths, we’re bound to disagree on many of the important issues, such as that of original sin. It’s a matter of Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which differs in essential ways from Christian interpretation. As you know, even Christians of different denominations don’t agree with one another on some vital issues. So how can we expect Jews to agree on them? I can assure you that some Jews are well aware of the Catholic position concerning original sin and how that position is linked to other Catholic beliefs, including the mission of Jesus, the Sacrament of Baptism, and the notions of redemption and salvation. Since Jews disagree with the aforementioned, it stands to reason they would also disagree with the idea of original sin. However, the way you phrase the question suggests that Jews should take their lead from the Church, whereas if Jewish teaching and tradition have existed for quite a while longer, as you indicate, why wouldn’t the reverse be the case? In sum, while we have common faith traditions on some of the larger issues, in several most important ways, we still differ.

I’m not going to present an apologetic for the Jewish belief regarding original sin in babies since, even on the Non-Catholic Religions Forum, I think it would not be appropriate and would likely result in needless arguments, and, further, would divert from the topic of the current thread.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That’s NOT the same thing as endorsing it. Nor is even close to proclaiming it as a DOGMA.

What did that (the idea that it wasn’t 100% dogmatically declared) mean, though, for the vast majority of Catholics (I’m excepting some professional theologians here) up until fairly recently who were taught Limbo as “the common Catholic teaching” and “common doctrine”? ( I’m quoting from the above second link from the Vatican…in paragraphs 26 & 28, IIRC.) What did that mean, for example, for all the parents who were told that their stillborn infants could not be buried within the Catholic cemetery?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Right. Not even sweet little babies.

Yes. “Deserve”. In quotation marks.

Only as a corollary to the truth as you so rightly proclaimed above in bold.

Now there are quotation marks where there were none before.

How exactly do you draw the conclusion that because no one can deserve heaven, they therefore deserve hell? Even more importantly, considering the teaching on Purgatory.

I really hate to say it - but yes, we all deserve hell.

Our own best reasoning in the sciences indicate that we all become nothing in the grave. It’s only in the hope of Christ that we can escape the nothingness that is our fate from the time we’re conceived.

I dearly wish that we could share some specific revelation with mothers and fathers who mourn, but we have a much more powerful revelation to proclaim- that of our shared hope with those that were unborn. That Christ alone will judge us. And, that He is both Justice and Mercy.

There is no such revelation in regards to unborn and infants. There is no such teaching as an assurance of hell. Otherwise, it would be impossible to have a hope. Would it not?

If we are to acknowledge the magnificence of God, then it is only prudent to leave such matters as “deserving” hell up to Him. I find it arrogant to say that someone deserves hell. More so, when I am completely ignorant as to what charge can be brought to such a soul to make such an assertion.

It is one thing to say, I don’t know. And it is another thing to say the unborn and infants deserve hell.

Again, from the epistemological stand of the assertion to deserve hell. You must be able then to present a method, a validity, and/or a scope of how you draw such a conclusion. To include, but not limited to, the charges that prove what that soul did to deserve said punishment.

God is merciful and just, and if He determines that a soul will suffer eternal punishment, we can be sure that His judgment is just. But that is His prerogative, not ours.

 

[AbideWithMe]

However, the way you phrase the question suggests that Jews should take their lead from the Church, whereas if Jewish teaching and tradition have existed for quite a while longer, as you indicate, why wouldn’t the reverse be the case?

Hmm…I don’t know, but I thought Dronald was saying “the reverse”. IOW, asking the question myself, if we are to believe the Catholic position is correct, shouldn’t there be some evidence of its origins within Jewish beliefs, as Judaism is the older religion?

 

[Robyn_p]

Pope Eugene’s statement isn’t to be interpreted as “therefore, the unbaptized go to Limbo.” Limbo isn’t even mentioned in the text.

And Pope Pius’s statement simply judged a statement as not being heretical.

That’s NOT the same thing as endorsing it. Nor is even close to proclaiming it as a DOGMA.

That’s just gaga lala nonsense.

Right. Both of those popes are saying exactly what you’ve been saying, that without sanctifying grace it’s impossible to get into heaven. Original sin alone is enough to keep us separated from God. That is the official teaching of the Church

And Pope Pius is pretty clearly condemning the idea that we can know for sure there is no limbo and that unbaptized infants definitely go to heaven. (That’s how I read it anyway.) Which is false. We can’t know.

But neither pope is excluding or condemning the possibility that God could bestow the grace of baptism on the unbaptized if he wanted. They don’t bother addressing that at all. They’re only talking about what happens if we die without sanctifying grace.

The fact is, what God decides to do with the unbaptized is something the Church has never tried to define. He could send them to limbo, he could give them sanctifying grace, he could give them a chance to choose for or against him…we don’t know. No point in arguing about what we don’t know.

 

[AbideWithMe]

And Pope Pius is pretty clearly condemning the idea that we can know for sure there is no limbo and that unbaptized infants definitely go to heaven. (That’s how I read it anyway.) Which is false. We can’t know.

The fact is, what God decides to do with the unbaptized is something the Church has never tried to define.

I was reading the Vatican document linked a few posts up. It’s well and thoughtfully written. Pope Pius was actually, though, telling Jansenists, in their reversion to Augustine’s harsh teaching (that unbaptized babies went to hell) that they had to let Catholic scholars also discuss Limbo.

Reading that document as well as the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Limbo, it seems to me that significant efforts have been made over the last 1600 or so years to come up with a firm teaching, but each teaching, though it holds for a while, eventually falls out of favor with later generations of theologians

 

[Robyn_p]

I was reading the Vatican document linked a few posts up. It’s well and thoughtfully written. Pope Pius was actually, though, telling Jansenists, in their reversion to Augustine’s harsh teaching (that unbaptized babies went to hell) that they had to let Catholic scholars also discuss Limbo.

That makes more sense actually. Thanks.

But yeah either way, the Pope there was only saying we can’t exclude the possibility of limbo, not making the existence of limbo a dogma that Catholics are required to believe in.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hmm…I don’t know, but I thought Dronald was saying “the reverse”. IOW, asking the question myself, if we are to believe the Catholic position is correct, shouldn’t there be some evidence of its origins within Jewish beliefs, as Judaism is the older religion?

Re-reading Dronald’s comment, I think you may be right. I guess he’ll have to explain what he means if he wishes.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That makes more sense actually. Thanks.

But yeah either way, the Pope there was only saying we can’t exclude the possibility of limbo, not making the existence of limbo a dogma that Catholics are required to believe in.

Right.

As a non-Catholic, I’d encourage everyone to read the Vatican document above. It’s written with much more sensitivity, as well as historical transparency, than we amateurs often manage ourselves here on CAF in our interactions.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Re-reading Dronald’s comment, I think you may be right. I guess he’ll have to explain what he means if he wishes.

Yes, I hope too that he’ll clarify his question.

Dronald, after one too many times of spell check “fixing” your username for me, I’ve given you the honor of adding “Dronald” to my tablet’s dictionary, and it worked!

 

[dronald]

Yes, I hope too that he’ll clarify his question.

Dronald, after one too many times of spell check “fixing” your username for me, I’ve given you the honor of adding “Dronald” to my tablet’s dictionary, and it worked!

I’m honoured!

You’re correct in that I would assume that the tradition of original sin (again, assuming Catholicism is correct) would be found rooted in ancient Judaism. Although, from Meltzer’s perspective I can understand that the question was phrased rather oddly, considering he does not assume Catholicism is correct.

So Meltzerboy, I apologize for not being more clear with what I was asking as I wasn’t exactly asking you but rather giving a continuation of what you said and directing it towards the Catholic posters here. Although I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and would appreciate any more certainly.

So essentially I’m curious as to why, if the Jews is where Christianity originated from, that the Jews have no concept of original sin; unless they do. I’m curious what the Catholic posters think of this, because as Christians we must have a wide open mind to Jewish history.

Assuming again that Catholicism and their belief on original sin is true, then it must have always been true (with the Jews of course from a Catholic perspective.) So i’m curious why the Jews never reached the same or a similar conclusion about the destiny of infants.

I hope that clears some things up; and I’ll try to be more clear in the future.

 

[PRmerger]

Now there are quotation marks where there were none before.

sigh.

“There were none before”, eh?

Yep. Not a one of us “deserves” heaven.

(Here, the universe of discourse is: those of us left here on earth at this moment)

What we do “deserve”…is hell.

That’s why Christ came, Isaiah.

Do you not remember reading this, Isaiah, addressed to you, just a few days ago?

Do you know what these things are: "] around the word, deserves?

That I didn’t use it in subsequent posts is irrelevant, because I had already established that “deserves” is a qualified “deserves”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

sigh.

“There were none before”, eh?

Do you not remember reading this, Isaiah, addressed to you, just a few days ago?

Do you know what these things are: "] around the word, deserves?

That I didn’t use it in subsequent posts is irrelevant, because I had already established that “deserves” is a qualified “deserves”.

The **context **of that post is not specific to the unborn and infants. But a general “we” as the post clearly shows.

The **context **of your 2nd post is specific to infants and the unborn.

Let’s be clear on something, please:

What exactly do you mean by deserve and what do the quotation marks on that word exclude from the definition?