Doctrine change on the fate of the unbaptized infants?

[Anesti33]

For someone to die without committing actual sin but not being baptized and they go to Limbo, at the Last Judgement and in the New Jerusalem do these souls reunite back to God as if they are in Heaven?

No, Limbo is an eternal, not temporal, place or state.

 

[Gab123]

Is that possible?

Perfect natural happiness.

Actually, yes the Hell of the damned

Again, not the damned in the lake of fire or tortured by demons reserved for the reprobate. Furthermore, The Old Testament us full of references to the Limbo of the Fathers, known as Sheol. the Limbo of the infants was developed as a theological speculation in the Middle Ages, pondering what happens to unbaptized infants, though it never reached any dogmatic definition by the Magisterium, even though it was mentioned in theory in its teachings and to thus day remains a possible hypothesis. Thus today the answer to the question is still “ in limbo” and the Church leaves the question in the hands of God.

 

[CathBoy1]

Again, not the damned in the lake of fire or tortured by demons reserved for the reprobate.

Hell is Hell, Limbo is Hell, it is not some 3rd place or state of being.
I am not arguing that those in Limbo are tortured by demons or suffer in the lake of fire, only that Limbo is quite literally Hell, albeit those located in the place or state of being known as Limbo ”Go straight down, yet suffer unequal punishments”, the unequal punishment being deprivation of the Beatific Vision (Heaven).

To clarify I am not telling you that you must 100% believe in the theory of Limbo, but please do not try to sugarcoat what the theory is and what it is not, it only leads to more confusion.

Furthermore, The Old Testament us full of references to the Limbo of the Fathers, known as Sheol.

It has been theorized that the Limbo of the Fathers otherwise known as the Bosom of Abraham was in fact what we now call purgatory, likewise it has also been theorized that it was also located in Hell…

… AFAIK both theory’s are acceptable within Catholicism, however some other 3rd, 4th or 5th place or state of being is not acceptable within Catholicism, only Heaven and Hell (purgatory is a temporary state of being for those who are indeed saved, a good way I have heard purgatory explained is that those who enter into the kingdom experience a burning from the heavenly [uncreated] light, this burning sensation is known as purgatory, how long one experiences this burning varies, hence we pray for the dead).

For someone to die without committing actual sin but not being baptized and they go to Limbo, at the Last Judgement and in the New Jerusalem do these souls reunite back to God as if they are in Heaven?

Limbo is Hell. Hell is eternal, however those in Limbo do not suffer as those elsewhere in Hell (for all intents and purpose it is believed to be a place of happiness and joy, just not the joy of Heaven), the only way in which they suffer is being deprived of the Beatific Vision (Heaven).

I have also heard that since they have no knowledge of Heaven, they don’t realize what it is that they’re missing and so don’t suffer whatsoever, from their pov (weather that is correct or not I do not know, however I did read that some time ago whilst studying the subject).

 

[CathBoy1]

Yes, it is often (mistakenly) declared that Limbo was a medieval innovation, however as you have correctly pointed out, the church fathers clearly taught about it even if they didn’t explicitly call it Limbo…

…and as you have pointed out, Pope Pius VI even condemned the Jansenists for denying Limbo.

 

[Usagi]

That’s where you are wrong. I literally posted definitive teaching saying the exact opposite .

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven ;
[/quote]

How am I wrong if we are saying exactly the same thing?

Those who die in a state of sin (actual or merely original) cannot go to Heaven. The question is whether God might employ extraordinary means so that those who have committed no actual sin do not die in a state of original sin, just as they would not if they had been physically baptized.

 

[JerryZ]

Limbo is the same situation our forefathers were prior to Christ incarnation. There were all waiting for HIM in this holding place.
Jesus stated that in this place there was one side that was “happy” where Abraham was and the other side was not where the rich man in HIS parable went.
Jesus did state that GOD has “many mansions” or places? we cannot know this side of Heaven what GOD can accomplish.
The important thing is that eventually we shall all be resurrected. Even the aborted babies and those children who died young. And the most accepted idea is that when that happens we shall receive glorified bodies that are not old or frail but the most perfect human body we would have had if sin had not intervened.
Therefore all the infants and aborted babies would have what GOD had intended for them and could make their choice manifest. Accept Christ or reject HIM.
The outcome is not a given some people do not like GOD and would rather go to hell. It is a fact see what happened to the Angels.
They are infinitely more intelligent than us and still chose against GOD

Peace!

 

[hope]

That’s where you are wrong. I literally posted definitive teaching saying the exact opposite .
[/quote]

either I am reading it wrong or you are

Usagi states that BAPTIZED infants go to heaven and that anyone who dies with original sin cannot. I can see an objection that it isn’t just sin but mortal sin. Is that what you meant?

 

[hope]

and that anyone who dies in a state of sin (actual or merely original) cannot.

It is not just sin but mortal sin.

 

[Anesti33]

Limbo is the same situation our forefathers were prior to Christ incarnation. There were all waiting for HIM in this holding place.
Jesus stated that in this place there was one side that was “happy” where Abraham was and the other side was not where the rich man in HIS parable went.

No, you have Limbo of the Infants confused with Limbo of the Fathers. These are two radically different concepts.

Limbo of the Fathers, or Sheol, was a temporary place of happiness for the righteous who died awaiting the Beatific Vision. When Jesus was in the Tomb, He went to Sheol to announce the Kingdom of God and open the Gates of Heaven, Sheol was abolished because it was no longer necessary. That is the Limbo of the Fathers.

Limbo of the Infants is an eternal part of Hell. Yes, even the inhabitants of Hell will receive bodies at the End of Time, but there will be no “new choices” for unbaptized infants; entrusted to the Mercy of God, they will stay where they are for eternity.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In many places there are a certain number of weeks of classes that couples need to take, at least for the first baby baptized, or the first one baptized at that parish. This is stated in the bulletins. I don’t know whether the pastor allows some couples to skip it or take a short version if he’s confident they are devout and have a reasonable knowledge of the faith and their responsibilities.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Fundamentals of Church Dogma is not an official publication of the Church, and certainly does not establish Limbo of Infants as a “dogma” or doctrine when the Church, under Pope Benedict XVI, clearly stated in the document I posted that it doesn’t formally adopt the teaching.

You are free to believe in Limbo of Infants all day and all night and cite whatever you like, but it’s still not official Church teaching. I certainly dont find posts citing Ott in opposition to Pope Benedict to be persuasive at all.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In many places there are a certain number of weeks of classes that couples need to take, at least for the first baby baptized, or the first one baptized at that parish. This is stated in the bulletins. I don’t know whether the pastor allows some couples to skip it or take a short version if he’s confident they are devout and have a reasonable knowledge of the faith and their responsibilities.

I’m not sure this parish even had a set program for infant baptismal preparation. It was a very small parish, that for historical reasons, co-existed with several other larger parishes in town, and attracted people from throughout the area who preferred the liturgy — “Ordinary Form” in the vernacular celebrated ad orientem, communion rail, kneeling for communion, no sign of peace, and Mass could be over in 45 minutes. There weren’t many couples with children, it was mostly older people and a few singles. They didn’t even have a bulletin or a Web site.

I can absolutely see the need for baptismal preparation — it wouldn’t be unheard of, for couples barely even to comprehend what baptism is, to think of it as a cultural marker or a “christening”, and to have no intention of imparting or practicing their faith with anything approaching consistency. But on the other hand, I do not think children should be punished, by having baptism withheld, because their parents aren’t as fervent as they should be. I want to think that a good, solidly Catholic godparent could “step in the gap” when you have a situation like that.

 

[ReaderT]

Perfect natural happiness.

I’m still wondering about that even - what does natural happiness look like that does not involve God? (Because if God were involved, I think He’d want us to ascend “from glory to glory” as the Bible says, which would lead to the beatific vision).

 

[CathBoy1]

I do not disagree with you, personally the more I study the subject of Original Sin the more I lean towards the EO viewpoint, it just makes sooooo much more sense to me, go figure we Latins are always called scholastic

I believe the Catholic viewpoint of Original Sin 100% necessitates a belief in Limbo, others may disagree with me but it is my opinion.

Do I believe in Limbo? I’m not sure.
The real question is how do I feel about the RC and EO viewpoints on Original Sin and that’s a question I need to answer for myself…

…I have not answered it yet.

If I hold to the RC viewpoint (I’m just not sure if I can 100% commit to this stance) I believe it 100% necessitates a belief in Limbo.

However I find myself (mostly) in agreement with Holy Orthodoxy on this subject.

Quite the conundrum no?

 

[Anrakyr]

Quite the conundrum no?

Part of my fall from the catholic church was about suicide. Our understanding of mental health was so much less 20 years ago. You killed yourself, you were in hell.

Now with our understanding is more widely accepted “you are in so much anguish you are not accountable.” The idea being a drowning victim in panic isn’t responsible for hurting people or themselves while flailing.

This was repugnant to me. The church clearly even back then took a “leave it in God’s hands” but made no effort to bury the unbaptized and self inflicted on holy ground.

It further bothers me that I’m born autistic, I can’t feel emotions the same as you. I can’t rationalize a compassionate all powerful god so I’m going to hell because I’m built to live logically and die in grief?

Logically the church never changed doctrine on anything. It’s in practice the church militant applied its practice.

Still stings either way.

 

[Glennon_P]

Quite the conundrum no?

Slightly off-topic…

If I agree with the fact that this is a conundrum, should I respond “yes”? Because that would be the opposite of the “no” you ended the sentence with.

I’ve never quite figured out how to respond to that sentence construction.

Now back to your regular-scheduled thread.

 

[JimG]

To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin

 

[CathBoy1]

It further bothers me that I’m born autistic

I can sympathize, my eldest daughter is autistic.

Logically the church never changed doctrine on anything. It’s in practice the church militant applied its practice.

Still stings either way.

Agreed.

I’ve never quite figured out how to respond to that sentence construction.

I always found it easier to simply say I agree or disagree

 

[JerryZ]

WOw Abolished!!! They did not send me that memo! Who knows what GOD can and can’t do with “HIS” dwelling places.
Where has it been declared that the Limbo of the Infants is a “part of hell”?
Sources are needed to confirm this, please provide them.
Why would they go to hell if they have not committed personal sin?

Peace!

 

[CathBoy1]

Here is how the theory of Limbo of the Infants is the outer most part of hell, free of punishment, etc. a happy place, but void of the Beatific Vision, and how it fits with the Limbo of the Fathers otherwise known as the Bosom of Abraham

The theory fits within the theory about the 4 parts of hell according to St Thomas Aquinas

1. the inner or lower most part is Gehenna, where the devil, demons, the damned and the lake of fire are located.
2. Purgatory.
3. Limbo of the Fathers where the OT Saints were until Jesus brought them to Heaven, otherwise called the Bosom of Abraham and Sheol.
4. Limbo of the Infants (or Children) is the outermost part of hell.

Dr Taylor Marshall describes it here:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

4 Sections of Hell according to Thomas Aquinas (by Dr Taylor Marshall)

However I have heard it argued that the Limbo of the Infants and the Limbo of the Fathers are one in the same place (or state of being), still located within Hell, however whether this is true or not I do not know.