If Limbo exists

[grannymh]

When people say they think that unbaptized babies go to heaven, I think they mean that the babies are Cleansed of original sin through some means other than ordinary baptism by water. If that is possible, and if it is not only possible but also actually happens, then the babies wouldn’t have original sin Or personal sin and thus would be unable to go to hell. What do you think? Is that possible?

The possible is detailed in the beginning of paragraph 1260, Catechism *of the Catholic Church Second Edition. *Human babies are part of the all.
**CCC 1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”

 

[truetofaith]

This is the suggested link which I use. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Because I have a non-friendly computer, I have to scroll down a bit to the search function box. It says “enter search string” whatever that is. I enter the word paragraph followed by the number. For example paragraph 464. This brings up paragraph 464. Underneath that there are options like “enter the Catechism at this paragraph.”

The other link usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

has changed and is now beyond my capability that I cannot use it. However, I did see a CAF post which praised it.

Recommended paragraphs are 464-483. If you want to spend the time, check out the cross-references in the margin.

I read the paragraphs but I don’t see anything that says Jesus continuously had the Beatific Vision or was unable to commit sin.

 

[JimG]

“There is one misunderstanding about this teaching that sometimes rears its ugly head. Specifically, some people claim that Jesus could have sinned but that he consciously chose not to sin. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus could no more have sinned than 2+2 could equal five. It’s simply impossible.”

Could Jesus have sinned?

 

[grannymh]

I read the paragraphs but I don’t see anything that says Jesus continuously had the Beatific Vision or was unable to commit sin.

Try starting with the Catholic belief that Jesus is True God.

When you start with the Catholic conclusion that Jesus is True God, then the link in post 43 by JimG will be helpful.

 

[truetofaith]

“There is one misunderstanding about this teaching that sometimes rears its ugly head. Specifically, some people claim that Jesus could have sinned but that he consciously chose not to sin. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus could no more have sinned than 2+2 could equal five. It’s simply impossible.”

Could Jesus have sinned?

I think you are wrong. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin, why would the devil bother to tempt Him? And wait for a later opportunity?

Also in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus could have thrown in the towel & quit but said to the Father “Your Will not Mine.”

 

[JimG]

I think you are wrong. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin, why would the devil bother to tempt Him? And wait for a later opportunity?

Also in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus could have thrown in the towel & quit but said to the Father “Your Will not Mine.”

Your first comment is addressed in the link from Catholic Answers which I provided. It is likely that Satan did not realize the identity of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity.

Look at it like this. Jesus had two natures but he was only one Person–and that Person was the Divine Word–the second Person of the Trinity. Jesus is not a human person. He is a divine Person. In his divinity he fully possesses the one divine nature which is sinless by nature. In his human nature he has a human will which is always in perfect accord with the divine will. To say that Jesus could sin is like saying that God can destroy himself. (He can’t, because his nature is “to be.”)

 

[truetofaith]

Your first comment is addressed in the link from Catholic Answers which I provided. It is likely that Satan did not realize the identity of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity.

Look at it like this. Jesus had two natures but he was only one Person–and that Person was the Divine Word–the second Person of the Trinity. Jesus is not a human person. He is a divine Person. In his divinity he fully possesses the one divine nature which is sinless by nature. In his human nature he has a human will which is always in perfect accord with the divine will. To say that Jesus could sin is like saying that God can destroy himself. (He can’t, because his nature is “to be.”)

satan knew who Jesus was because he said, Matt. 4 : 6 " if you are the Son of God, throw yourself off the temple & it is written, “He will command his angels concerning you, & they will lift you up, so you will not strike your foot against a stone.”
Jesus answered, it is also written, “you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”

So, the devil knew who Jesus was & Jesus could have taken the bait & displayed His Might…but He didn’t.

I’ll just say you are right so we can end this discussion.

 

[JimG]

satan knew who Jesus was because he said, Matt. 4 : 6 " if you are the Son of God, throw yourself off the temple & it is written, “He will command his angels concerning you, & they will lift you up, so you will not strike your foot against a stone.”
Jesus answered, it is also written, “you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”

So, the devil knew who Jesus was & Jesus could have taken the bait & displayed His Might…but He didn’t.

I’ll just say you are right so we can end this discussion.

OK, but I can’t help but comment on that passage because it is one that I thought about a lot at various times. Whether Satan knew Jesus’ true identity I don’t know, but in the temptation he says “IF you are the son of God…” There is also the question of whether by that phrase he knew of the hypostatic union of the divine and human nature. For a long time I thought that when Jesus replied "you shall not put the Lord your God to the test, that he was referring to himself. But the scripture quote really means that we should not dare God to do something or else. If I were to say something like “I can jump off this cliff because God will protect me,” I would be 'putting the Lord God to the test. If Satan really knew of the Personhood of Jesus, maybe this temptation was a way of satisfying himself that this is really who Jesus was.

 

[Fuerza]

When people say they think that unbaptized babies go to heaven, I think they mean that the babies are Cleansed of original sin through some means other than ordinary baptism by water. If that is possible, and if it is not only possible but also actually happens, then the babies wouldn’t have original sin Or personal sin and thus would be unable to go to hell. What do you think? Is that possible?

I do think it’s possible as I explained in the rest of my post (though I tend to drag on, so what I think is clear may be incoherent to a normal human being ).

 

[Gorgias]

OK, but I can’t help but comment on that passage because it is one that I thought about a lot at various times. Whether Satan knew Jesus’ true identity I don’t know, but in the temptation he says “IF you are the son of God…”

When looking at conditional statements in the Bible, it’s important to keep in mind that conditionals in Koine Greek work differently than conditionals in English. In the particular construction of Mt 4:3, we’ve got a simple conditional. In this case, the grammar of the conditional statement just implies that the tempter believes that if Jesus is the Son of God, then He should do the things that the tempter is commanding Him to do. The conditional doesn’t really say – one way or the other – whether the tempter personally believes the “if” clause to be true or false.

Theologically speaking, though, we’d have have to recall that the devil observed both the Annunciation and the birth of Christ. One would presume that he knew that Jesus was the Son of God; however, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he knew precisely what that entailed. We’d think that he didn’t know that it was absolutely fruitless to tempt Him – it would seem, from the text, that he thought it was worth the try. In any case, the temptation narrative on its own merits doesn’t really establish whether Christ could sin or not; it just indicates that the devil hoped that He could sin, and was thwarted in this particular attempt.

There is also the question of whether by that phrase he knew of the hypostatic union of the divine and human nature.

The text itself doesn’t shed light on that question.

 

[Ron_Conte]

quote=Fuerza;14002192]I believe that when faced with an unbaptized infant or mentally disabled person (who lacked even the slightest use of reason) who has died, God looks into what their lives would have been under normal circumstances. If they ultimately would have received baptism in some form, I believe that they are granted salvation. If they would have ultimately died without baptism and supernatural faith in Christ anyway, then they are sent to Limbo.

The above quoted claim contradicts Catholic teaching on salvation. We are saved or condemned based on the choices in our lives, and on whether or not we die in a state of grace. It is not compatible with that teaching to say that someone goes to Heaven, or not, based on what would have happened, but did not happen. That is like a judge in court freeing or sentencing someone based on a mere hypothetical, not on the evidence before the court.