How is Limbo not Hell?

[Ghosty]

At what point in our life cycle does this building of the God-shaped hole take place?

At the instant of conception. It is an integral part of human nature, not something “developed” over time.

Who is ‘we’? Is this not exactly what I have been saying right throughout this thread? That we’re capable of the Beatific, but we’re not assured the Beatific Vision? Or is ‘the Infinite’ different from the ‘Beatific Vision’? Or does ‘we’ not include the unborn?

“We” is humanity in general. The unborn are humans as well, materially capable of the Infinite, the Beatific Vision, meaning it’s possible by virtue of their human nature, but not necessarily capable in the sense of it being actually possible in their case. We simply don’t know if it’s actually possible for them, even though it’s materially possible; that is why we leave it to Hope in God’s Mercy.

All clay is materially capable of becoming a pot, but clay that is thrown in a river and forgotten is not actually capable. Every knife is materially capable of cutting a particular loaf of bread, but once that loaf of bread is eaten no nice is actually capable of cutting it. Countless examples of the difference between material potential, and actualized potential are possible, and saying that every human is capable of the Beatific Vision does not necessarily mean that every human gets it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[rudycmejia]

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.

Correct

Pope Benedict XVI recently declared that LIMBO does not exist!!!

 

[tdgesq]

Correct

Pope Benedict XVI recently declared that LIMBO does not exist!!!

quotes, links, references please.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

“We” is humanity in general. The unborn are humans as well, materially capable of the Infinite, the Beatific Vision, meaning it’s possible by virtue of their human nature, but not necessarily capable in the sense of it being actually possible in their case.

Ghosty? What does this mean? Are the unborn capable of the Beatific Vision or not?

Ghosty:

We simply don’t know if it’s actually possible for them, even though it’s materially possible;

What is the difference between materially possible or actually possible? Where does this terminology come from?

Ghosty:

All clay is materially capable of becoming a pot, but clay that is thrown in a river and forgotten is not actually capable.

Sorry you had to run into a potter. If I go into the river and collect the clay at the bottom and dry it out in the sun, run it through a strainer and rehydrate it, I’ve got it back.

Also if the clay thrown into the river had been fired first, all I would have to do is pick up and put it on my bookshelf.

Ghosty:

Every knife is materially capable of cutting a particular loaf of bread, but once that loaf of bread is eaten no nice is actually capable of cutting it.

Um that’s because it’s gone. In any case, you are grasping at straws with these analogies. They are faulty. If the soul of the unborn baby still exists and he/she has chosen God then God is eventually where that soul will arrive.

Ghosty:

saying that every human is capable of the Beatific Vision does not necessarily mean that every human gets it.

I have never said that every human gets it. With virtually every post I have made claiming that the possibility for Beatific Vision is there for the unborn, I have also said that there is no guarantee that each specific unborn baby will attain it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ghosty? Where have I

said that the unborn cannot utilize free will in any way?

Ghosty:

It’s a reading in to your definition

It is a blatant and persistent misrepresentation of what I have said. I have said exactly the opposite so many times now that it staggers the imagination.

Ghosty:

but it applies because free-will is by definition a cognitive action.

John the Baptist in his mother’s womb was capable of a cognitive action? Then you would have to admit that cognitive action is possible in the womb. Which means that either way you cut it – cognitive or not – unborn humans have free will.

Ghosty:

You’ve made the claim that there is some other kind of non-cognitive free will. I would like for you to explain this, and explain how it’s “free” without the ability to know what options are available.

Options available:

1. God; or
2. not God.

Ghosty:

The rest of your post requires a more clear exposition of what exactly free will means, and can’t be addressed without that.

Nope, sorry. I’ve given a lot of links to stuff on free will. Read those please.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty? What does this mean? Are the unborn capable of the Beatific Vision or not?

They are human beings, and human nature is built for Grace. As for whether or not the unborn are actually capable, I’ve answered that when I said:

“We don’t know if the unborn receive Grace or not, we can only trust in the Mercy and Providence of God.”

If that’s not clear enough, let me know what is missing for you and I’ll try to clarify.

What is the difference between materially possible or actually possible? Where does this terminology come from?

The language comes from my attempt to simplify Thomistic theological/philosophical principles, but the terms reflect common human experience in general. Something is “materially capable” if the matter in question can potentially, by its nature, do/have something. A knife is materially of cutting a loaf of bread. Actually capable is when this material potential can be put into act. It’s possible for something to be materially capable, but not actually capable: a knife is materially capable of cutting this loaf of bread, but it’s not actually capable of cutting this loaf because I ate it.

Basically I’m saying that human nature is a “God-receiving thing”, but that doesn’t mean that this or that particular human person will receive God. The fact that a bunch of humans don’t receive God doesn’t somehow make them less human, just like a bunch of knives that never cut something are somehow less knife.

Sorry you had to run into a potter…

It’s best to work within the limits and intent of the analogy, rather than try to stretch it out. My point is simply that clay that is lost before becoming a pot is not “less clay” for not ever having the chance of becoming a pot.

If the soul of the unborn baby still exists and he/she has chosen God then God is eventually where that soul will arrive.

This presumes that the unborn has the choice. We don’t know that they do, according to the Church. Personally I think that God likely provides such a choice, but it would be an extraordinary lifting up of their state to the ability to choose, not a normal, entirely natural use of free will. Regardless, this view is not that of the Church, it’s just a possible solution I can personally offer. The official teaching of the Church, which I accept 100%, is that we don’t know and can’t know that even this idea is possible. It’s a complete blank-spot in our knowledge. I’m comfortable with that.

I have never said that every human gets it. With virtually every post I have made claiming that the possibility for Beatific Vision is there for the unborn, I have also said that there is no guarantee that each specific unborn baby will attain it.

I know, and I wasn’t implying that you did say it. I was including that statement for the completeness of the point, not as an argument against you. The point is that the natural ability to receive doesn’t mean that ANYONE actually receives. The fact that some don’t receive, and can’t because of circumstances, doesn’t negate their possession of a nature that COULD receive.

Hence if it were true that the unborn did not ever have the chance to enact free will, it would not follow that they were not human. Free will is a faculty of human nature, but it’s not a faculty that’s always operating. When we sleep, we don’t have actual free will, for example, even though we have the material capability of it (we have a human soul). Likewise, in my view, with the unborn and infants. Their inability to use their natural faculty of free will doesn’t mean they’re not human.

It is a blatant and persistent misrepresentation of what I have said. I have said exactly the opposite so many times now that it staggers the imagination.

It’s called “reductio ad absurdum”. You’ve said that if an infant can’t use free will, they wouldn’t be human. I’m pointing out that such a premise leads to the conclusion that it’s an act that makes a human, rather than the nature that enables such acts which makes a human.

John the Baptist in his mother’s womb was capable of a cognitive action?

No, he wasn’t. Nor was he capable of an act of free-will. That’s my argument because I’m saying that free will requires the ability to discern and select, to make a choice based on knowledge, a property of cognition. You’ve yet to address this.

So again, St. John the Baptist was NOT engaging in an act of free will when he leaped in the womb of St. Elizabeth. If you have a different definition of free will, present it and lets see if it holds up under scrutiny.

Options available:

1. God; or
2. not God.

And how does this NOT involve knowledge/cognition?

Nope, sorry. I’ve given a lot of links to stuff on free will. Read those please.

You haven’t posted a single link on this thread. What are you talking about?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Kent_Wendler]

This is what I believe:

For those who are dying, are free from mortal sin, and through no fault of their own have no access to the ordinary Baptism of Water, Jesus provides the necessary cleansing from the effects of Original Sin, using the water which poured forth from His side on Calvary.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ghosty:

The language comes from my attempt to simplify Thomistic theological/philosophical principles, but the terms reflect common human experience in general. Something is “materially capable” if the matter in question can potentially, by its nature, do/have something. A knife is materially of cutting a loaf of bread. Actually capable is when this material potential can be put into act. It’s possible for something to be materially capable, but not actually capable: a knife is materially capable of cutting this loaf of bread, but it’s not actually capable of cutting this loaf because I ate it.

So, as I have said before many times in other words:

1. unborn babies are materially capable of attaining Beatific Grace;
2. unborn babies may not be actually capable of attaining Beatific Grace depending on their choice for or against God.

Do you agree with this?

Ghosty:

The fact that a bunch of humans don’t receive God doesn’t somehow make them less human

Ghosty? Did anyone say that?

Ghosty:

It’s best to work within the limits and intent of the analogy, rather than try to stretch it out.

Here is the mirror…

Ghosty:

My point is simply that clay that is lost before becoming a pot is not “less clay” for not ever having the chance of becoming a pot.

What does becoming a pot have to do with the clayness of clay?

Ghosty:

This presumes that the unborn has the choice. We don’t know that they do, according to the Church.

Well then, John the Baptist did not leap in his mother’s womb for Joy.

Ghosty:

Personally I think that God likely provides such a choice, but it would be an extraordinary lifting up of their state to the ability to choose, not a normal, entirely natural use of free will.

Please address the references I have given you on what the Church has said on free will.

Ghosty:

Regardless, this view is not that of the Church, it’s just a possible solution I can personally offer. The official teaching of the Church, which I accept 100%, is that we don’t know and can’t know that even this idea is possible.

Materially possible? Or actually possible?

Ghosty:

Hence if it were true that the unborn did not ever have the chance to enact free will, it would not follow that they were not human.

Does the Father give the child a stone or a snake when the child asks for bread?

Ghosty:

No, he wasn’t. Nor was he capable of an act of free-will. That’s my argument because I’m saying that free will requires the ability to discern and select, to make a choice based on knowledge, a property of cognition. You’ve yet to address this.

I have addressed it several times. You believe that free will is an exclusive property of cognition. I believe that it is not an exclusive property of cognition. Either that or we must expand our idea of what cognition is.

Ghosty:

You haven’t posted a single link on this thread. What are you talking about?

I did not post links. But I did give you a list of quotes from Church teaching.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Actually even the Fathers believed that a baby must be baptized, and so has the Church, in these terms:

“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

“Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ.” - Augustine, Epistle 167,7,21 (A.D. 415).

“[T]his concupiscence, I say, which is cleansed only by the sacrament of regeneration, does undoubtedly, by means of natural birth, pass on the bond of sin to a man’s posterity, unless they are themselves loosed from it by regeneration.” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:23 (A.D. 420).

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold.”

Augustine, On Forgiveness of sin and baptism, 43:27 (A.D. 412). “But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: …Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration,** lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life**; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent’s poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted.”

Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258).“And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.”

“Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord…For the Lord says: ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’” Apostolic Constitutions, 6:3:15 (A.D. 400).

John Chrysostom, Homily on Philippians, 3:24 (A.D. 404).
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination [baptism], without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’”.

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

 

[rudycmejia]

quotes, links, references please.

here is one reference re LIMBO. I hope to send you a copy of the headline on Philippine Daily Inquirer about the Pope’s declaration about Limbo.

InfographicMay 16, 2007 | Issue 43•20

Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

The Catholic Church has ruled that, contrary to previous church doctrine, unbaptized children do not spend time in limbo until the End of Days. Here are other doctrine decisions the church has made recently.

Lifted ban on having sex with the lights on and your eyes open

Swiffer® officially validated as a miracle

Accepted the Freemasons’ softball league invitation

Acknowledged that the Spanish Inquisition probably could’ve been handled better

Celibacy for clergy now optional, but those who remain chaste eligible for fantastic monthly prizes

Size of collection plates increased

Habits may now be tie-dyed or carry the logo of a nun’s favorite sports team

Reconsidered belief that there’s an invisible, all-powerful man in the sky who created everything

 

[mchium]

Who said there’s a Limbo? Not the Church. Best to keep aiming at heaven and not worry about things that don’t affect us in the least - like Limbo

 

[Greg27]

The document examining Limbo said simply, after a detailed analysis of the ideas of many fathers, it is perfectly fine for the Catholic to entrust the fate of the unbaptised to God’s mercy. To any of us who have been graced enough to experience God’s mercy and love in its fullness, and to see that same love turned towards those who have no sin of their own, I think the theological implications of hope are evident enough, but as with the question of hell, we can’t definitely say what the fate of the unbaptised is.

 

[rudycmejia]

The more I think about it, the more Limbo seems just another name for Hell. Eternal separation from God. Hearts forever restless (for our hearts are restless until they rest in God). Everlasting despair of never attaining that for which we were made.

How is this not Hell?

Do not be hard on yourself. Because there is neither Limbo nor Hell.

According to theologian Edward Schillebeeckx, people who are in communion with the God of life are destined for heaven. Those who are not - those who are definitely wicked - their physical death would end their existence.

**There is only heaven **(E. Schillebeeckx, I Am A Happy Theologian: Eschatology, 63 - 68).

There is only heaven-and not alongside hell, where human beings undergo fire and pain for all eternity. It is against the nature of the God, who is love, for human beings to be punished for all eternity. For me, a man of faith, it is unthinkable that while joy pervades heaven there should be people not far away on the point of expiring in the midst of infernal and eternal suffering. There cannot be a hell which is the opposite of the eternal joy of the kingdom of God. There is only heaven.

…I don’t know whether there are these people who choose evil. But even if there are, hell does not exist. There is no infernal life.

… God does not have feelings of revenge. For me this coexistence of eternal heaven for the good and hell for the wicked, who receive eternal punishment, is impossible. The “eschaton” or the final fulfillment is exclusively positive; there is no negative eschaton. Good and not evil will have the last word. This is the message and this is the praxis of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Ghosty]

According to theologian Edward Schillebeeckx, people who are in communion with the God of life are destined for heaven. Those who are not - those who are definitely wicked - their physical death would end their existence.

Such a view has absolutely no place in the Catholic Faith. There is a Hell, and to not believe in it is to be a heretic, plain and simple.

Peace and God bless!

 

[rudycmejia]

Such a view has absolutely no place in the Catholic Faith. There is a Hell, and to not believe in it is to be a heretic, plain and simple.

Dear Ghosty,

Let me introduce to you Edward Schillebeeckx whose view of Heaven and Hell I quoted in my post.

*“AFlemish-speaking Belgian theologian, teaching theology first at Louvain in Belgium and then (from 1958) in the theological faculty of the Catholic University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, Schillebeeckx began to become a firm fixture in the panorama of the church and theology in the first half of the 1960s, at the same time of the Second Vatican Council, in which he took part as a theological consultant to the then dynamic Dutch episcopate. One of the most innovative themes of the Council which, to give it the title used then, went under the name of ‘church and world’ found in the lectures and articles of this northern theologian the most sensitive and most acute of interpreters. This was documented in a series of volumes which in the Netherlands bore the general title ‘Theological Soundings’ (5 vols., 1964-1972: see the bibliography on p. 84f). These volumes brought together the many essays in which he commented both on the conciliar debate and on the international theological debate.” *Rosino Gibellini, author of Edward Schillebeecks - I AM A HAPPY THEOLOGIAN

God bless!:

 

[tdgesq]

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

Council of Florence, Session 6, 6 July 1439.

That there is a hell has been decreed by an ecumenical council of the Church. It is not changeable, and teaching otherwise is heresy. That may not be what you want to hear, but it’s the truth. You might want to look into some of those theologians who theorize that God gives every person the opportunity to repent of sin immediately prior to death or who question whether any human soul will end up in hell. Those are permissible theological inquires.

 

[NonDenom]

The more I think about it, the more Limbo seems just another name for Hell. Eternal separation from God. Hearts forever restless (for our hearts are restless until they rest in God). Everlasting despair of never attaining that for which we were made.

How is this not Hell?

Hi All
There is no place like Limbo.
In Him and Only Him

 

[Ghosty]

Let me introduce to you Edward Schillebeeckx whose view of Heaven and Hell I quoted in my post.

He has no authority against the Dogmatic decrees of Ecumenical Councils. No credentials give the power to annul such teachings, not even the Papacy itself. In a different time this man would be formally excommunicated for such nonsense.

Peace and God bless!

 

[rudycmejia]

Correct

Pope Benedict XVI recently declared that LIMBO does not exist!!!

Here is the reference you requested. I have to send it in 2 parts because the article is too long.

‘Limbo does not exist’
Vatican scraps concept of place where unbaptized babies go
Philippine Daily Inquirer
April 22, 2007
Page A1
VATICAN CITY—THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS effectively buried the concept of limbo, opening the gates of heaven to babies who die unbaptized and reversing centuries of traditional Catholic teaching.
In a long-awaited document, the Church’s International Theological Commission said the medieval concept of limbo as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God seems to reflect an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”
Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the 41-page document.
Benedict approved the findings of the commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing the traditional teaching on limbo in light of “pressing” pastoral needs—primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.
Theologians said the move was highly significant—both for what it says about Benedict’s willingness to buck a tenet of Catholic belief that dates back to the 13th century, and for what it means theologically about the Church’s views on heaven, hell and original sin—the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.
The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine.
“The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation,” it said.
“There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”
Vatican watchers hailed the decision as both a sensitive and significant move by Benedict.
“Parents who are mourning the death of their child are no longer going to be burdened with the added guilt of not having gotten their child baptized,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.
End of part 1

 

[tdgesq]

So where’s part two? It doesn’t really matter. I’ve studied the ITC’s publication, The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without being Baptized. I’ve also read Pope Benedict’s earlier comments, which he candidly admits are not stated in the capacity of his teaching office. Neither state that Limbo does not exist.