How is Limbo not Hell?

[VociMike]

There is no limbo of the infants. It is a made up, and seriously flawed view of God. A Loving God would want babies with him completely, not “linked but seperated.” God is Love, therefore, limbo of the infants does not exist.

This is pretty much my view, with the added caveat that I believe God offers even infants the choice to either unite with him or be separated from him. The exercise of free will seems critical to being united with God.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

VociMike:

And here is where the example of John the Baptist leaping in the womb at the presence of Mary and Jesus becomes so significant. God tells us things for a reason, and I suggest that he told us this fact to confirm that even infants could (a) recognize, and (b) rejoice in, God.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. It was from JtB leaping in his mother’s womb that I began to think that the unborn definitely can recognize Jesus. And since JtB could not hear Jesus, could not see Jesus, could not feel Jesus, could not taste Jesus, presumably could not smell Jesus, then his perception of Jesus had to have been spiritual.

VociMike:

It is from John the Baptist’s example that I believe Baptism of Desire may be an option (to be desired or not desired) for every baby/child under the age of reason.

I agree. But I am just bone tired of defending the unborn to folks who don’t get it. I think people either get this unborn thing or they don’t. I would rather use my remaining time on earth to actually help the unborn. And that is not always straightforward, apart from praying.

I guess I am saying that I have finally met my Waterloo because my views on Baptism of Desire and the unborn seem to contradict the views of the Church. Is this where my long dark night of the soul begins?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This is pretty much my view, with the added caveat that I believe God offers even infants the choice to either unite with him or be separated from him. The exercise of free will seems critical to being united with God.

Indeed. If the unborn did not have free will then the unborn would not be human. And we know that they are human. If they are not human, then at what point do they become human? Who has the nerve to define this point?

If free will is based solely on intellectual maturity then most of us would not be human until the age of anywhere between 25-65 years and some of us never. And we would live in a Philip K D-ick world where abortion trucks would come around every afternoon, ringing their little bells to abort us as we played in parks or as we went to school.

If free will is based on spiritual maturity then who is to say that the unborn are not mature enough to recognize Jesus? Surely spiritual maturity starts with the ability to recognize Jesus and grows from there. If this were not true, then what is the purpose of life? Why live at all?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Still sounds like hell to me. Maybe a stuporous hell, but still hell.

It sounds like injustice to me. Like hell, if you will. Imagine how a little unborn baby would feel if, after having a tube stuck in his/her head and his/her grey matter suctioned out, he/she could not run into the arms of the Father to be comforted?

 

[VociMike]

I guess I am saying that I have finally met my Waterloo because my views on Baptism of Desire and the unborn seem to contradict the views of the Church. Is this where my long dark night of the soul begins?

No, the teaching of the Church is that any extraordinary means of salvation have not been revealed to us (probably because we would become too complacent if they had been), and therefore we must fall back on trusting God to do the right thing. People who insist on claiming more certainty than that are the ones who contradict the teaching of the Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

No, the teaching of the Church is that any extraordinary means of salvation have not been revealed to us (probably because we would become too complacent if they had been), and therefore we must fall back on trusting God to do the right thing. People who insist on claiming more certainty than that are the ones who contradict the teaching of the Church.

Well none of us can know what God has decided in terms of the Salvation of someone who has died.

But we do have some general ideas and some very specific ideas as regards sainthood.

As for the unborn who have died, I simply believe in the possibility that they can arrive at Heaven, even after a period in Purgatory. The possibility. The baby and God can work it out from there.

But to believe that the unborn who have died can never rise above a certain level of sanctity and never arrive at the Beatific Vision – that doesn’t make sense to me in terms of the free will. Truth cannot contradict truth. Faith cannot contradict reason. If anyone has free will then that free will extends to every choice up until and including the choice to dedicate oneself toward Heaven.

 

[Ghosty]

It’s worth pointing out, in case I missed it, that the notion of Limbo IS part of Hell by definition. It’s the “limbus”, or border, of Hell. The Limbo of the Infants is just the portion of Hell furthest removed from suffering, such that natural happiness is found there, but no supernatural Union with God.

So it’s perfectly correct to say it is Hell.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Brendan]

It sounds like injustice to me. Like hell, if you will. Imagine how a little unborn baby would feel if, after having a tube stuck in his/her head and his/her grey matter suctioned out, he/she could not run into the arms of the Father to be comforted?

I covered that already.

It would have a full sense of Contentment, as he\she would understand that they did not recieve the gift of Salvic Grace, but would not have the Jealosy that our corrupted souls experience.

And no one ever said that God was not present there, He is no less present in Limbo that He is here, and no less able to comfort.

In fact, we know He does provide Comfort, that too is a Natural Happiness.

 

[down_under]

Limbo was suggested as a theological opinion to meet a definite need; it was never necessary to believe it.

Catholics take the sacrament of Baptism very seriously–without baptism, you cannot enter heaven. What then to do with those who had no personal sin (babies), and who through no fault of their own died without Baptism? We can’t just dismiss the difficulty without dismissing the necessity of sacramental Baptism.

With the unpacking of what sacramental Baptism can extend to–literal water baptism; baptism by desire; by blood–then we may make a different suggestion–that there is some mode after death before individual judgment whereby the soul is given the ability and the chance to choose God. If the soul chooses God, that would be baptism by desire.

Basically, the Church tells us that this is veiled to us; it’s a mystery; but we can Just trust in God to take care of the helpless ones who are innocent of all personal sin.

For those who have personal sin and who even commit suicide; this is a unpromising scenario. We understand if there is no final perseverance, if a man dies in mortal sin; that’s pretty final bad news for him. But the Church chooses to emphasize, nowadays, that even in the worst-appearing case, we cannot presume to know the secret state of that soul’s standng with God. What appears may not be *what really *is. So we these days may “err” on the side of not-presuming to judge another man’s soul. We can then pray for the dead; and never loose hope to see him again in God.

In choosing to emphasize trust and hope in re:a suicide, the Church is choosing to risk scandal. The scandal is the hurt to belief that the mortal sin of suicide, e.g., is truly mortal; that to die in unrepented mortal sin means going to Hell.

The Church is trusting us to see all the way around this issue without losing either our fear and hatred of mortal sin, or our insistence on the necessity for salvation of baptism.

actually the church is emphasizing the thruth. Once a lady was sitting before the blessed sacrament when the cure of ars walked by he told her not to worry. Her husband made a good act of contrition between the bow of the bridge and the water. Tell me how much time is there to make perfect contrition between the triger pull and the bullet leaving the muzzel. Do you know? I don’t. We are off topic sorry, but we dont know the state of a mortal soul.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Brendan:

I covered that already.

Yes, I know. I merely disagreed with it. And I already know how much trouble I am in for disagreeing with the Church on this.

I disagree because truth cannot contradict truth and faith cannot be unreasonable. This whole business about the unborn dead not being able to achieve Beatific Vision does not strike me as reasonable. That is why I object to it.

Please note that I am not saying that the unborn dead deserve the Beatific Vision. Only that it should be possible for them to achieve – as opposed to impossible for them to achieve – depending on their own spiritual choices concerning a desire for God.

I am sticking with “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Moreover I am taking this up with my director and if that doesn’t work then with my bishop.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

It’s worth pointing out, in case I missed it, that the notion of Limbo IS part of Hell by definition. It’s the “limbus”, or border, of Hell. The Limbo of the Infants is just the portion of Hell furthest removed from suffering, such that natural happiness is found there, but no supernatural Union with God.

So it’s perfectly correct to say it is Hell.

Peace and God bless!

I am sad to hear this.

 

[abirdrrl]

It sounds like injustice to me. Like hell, if you will. Imagine how a little unborn baby would feel if, after having a tube stuck in his/her head and his/her grey matter suctioned out, he/she could not run into the arms of the Father to be comforted?

Amen. It’s amazing how small and limited some people in here think God is.

 

[Ghosty]

I am sad to hear this.

Sad to hear what? It’s just the traditional definition of the hypothesis of Limbo. I’m confused.

 

[VociMike]

I had a further thought on this subject. Limbo is said to involve “perfect natural happiness”, but we are not (only) natural creatures. Having immortal souls, we are also supernatural creatures. Thus “perfect natural happiness” is just a nice way of saying that some people will spend eternity as half a human being.

Yep, still sounds like hell.

 

[Ghosty]

Having immortal souls, we are also supernatural creatures.

Being immortal is not supernatural. The angels are immortal naturally as well. Supernatural refers to Divine things, not to created things.

You’re right, though, that “natural happiness” is not the fullness of human potential, because we are made to know God Personally. Limbo is indeed a “half-life”, the fullness of happiness in creatures, but nothing beyond that. Since we are made for not just for happiness in creatures, but Divine Happiness, it is indeed less than human potential.

“We are restless until we rest in You.” Limbo would be all the happiness that “the world” can provide, with the emptiness of missing out on Life with God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[VociMike]

Being immortal is not supernatural. The angels are immortal naturally as well. Supernatural refers to Divine things, not to created things.

Does it? I honestly don’t know the theological definition of “supernatural”, I do know that in the general understanding, “supernatural” is not limited to Divine things.

You’re right, though, that “natural happiness” is not the fullness of human potential, because we are made to know God Personally. Limbo is indeed a “half-life”, the fullness of happiness in creatures, but nothing beyond that. Since we are made for not just for happiness in creatures, but Divine Happiness, it is indeed less than human potential.

“We are restless until we rest in You.” Limbo would be all the happiness that “the world” can provide, with the emptiness of missing out on Life with God.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, we’re in full agreement here. But why wouldn’t “perfect natural happiness” be the most that a human being could want, could experience, if we are only natural beings? Why wouldn’t “perfect natural happiness” be synonymous with heaven? There seems to be a contradiction here.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Sad to hear what? It’s just the traditional definition of the hypothesis of Limbo. I’m confused.

I don’t think you are confused. I think we just disagree.

We are human from the moment of conception. Yet the unborn who die are, according to the Church, denied the possibility of the Beatific Vision. So the possibility of attaining the Beatific Vision is not based on humanness. There are different classes of humans.

That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If it seems reasonable to you, then explain the reasoning please.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Why wouldn’t “perfect natural happiness” be synonymous with heaven? There seems to be a contradiction here.

Yes. And what is more bothersome is that JP2 told us that truth cannot contradict truth and faith cannot be unreasonable. I believe that this is true. There is something about the class of unborn humans which seems to be a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Ghosty]

We are human from the moment of conception. Yet the unborn who die are, according to the Church, denied the possibility of the Beatific Vision. So the possibility of attaining the Beatific Vision is not based on humanness. There are different classes of humans.

I don’t understand how this makes a different class of humans. Humans have the potential for Grace, and with Grace they can see God. The Beatific Vision can never be based on “humanness”, only on Grace; if it were in any way based on humanness that would be Pelagianism, a heresy firmly denounced by the Church in the early centuries.

The unborn who die may receive Grace, they may not. We can’t know in this life. Limbo is an answer for what their experience of Hell might be assuming they don’t receive Grace, since they would not be punished for sins committed, but only exist outside the Beatific Vision.

We hope for the unborn, and that’s all we can do. We know absolutely that they can’t see God without Grace; that is Dogma. We don’t know whether they receive that Grace.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ghosty:

I don’t understand how this makes a different class of humans. Humans have the potential for Grace, and with Grace they can see God. The Beatific Vision can never be based on “humanness”, only on Grace; if it were in any way based on humanness that would be Pelagianism, a heresy firmly denounced by the Church in the early centuries.

Pelagianism has nothing to do with the Beatific Vision being based on ‘humanness.’

Ghosty:

The unborn who die may receive Grace, they may not.

OK.

Ghosty:

We can’t know in this life.

No, we can’t.

Ghosty:

Limbo is an answer for what their experience of Hell might be assuming they don’t receive Grace, since they would not be punished for sins committed, but only exist outside the Beatific Vision.

How can an unborn baby commit sins? Other than original sin?

What btw is the answer if they do receive Grace?

This is all confusing to me. Hell is for those who choose to be separated from God. So if the unborn can choose to be separated from God, presumably they will go to Hell. If they choose to be united with God, then why would they go to the outside circle of Hell (Limbo) and not to Purgatory? Unless you are saying that Purgatory is the outside circle of Hell (Limbo)? Are you saying that Limbo is Purgatory?

Ghosty:

We hope for the unborn, and that’s all we can do.

Strictly speaking that’s all we can do for anyone. The trouble is that we have more specific notions for what happens to adults who die than for the unborn who die.

Ghosty:

We know absolutely that they can’t see God without Grace; that is Dogma. We don’t know whether they receive that Grace.

No we don’t know that. But the Church has an opinion that the unborn who die will not receive the Grace to attain the Beatific Vision.

Does the Church have a corresponding opinion that adults who die will not receive the Grace to attain the Beatific Vision?