Is Limbo a Capital 'T' Tradition & de fide?

[rescath]

If we promote as valid doctrine all the wonderful things God COULD do, where does it stop? Eventually, what He DID reveal for our salvation becomes superfluous. You might as well be a Methodist or a Universalist, because Catholic Doctrine would be useless. All you have to believe is what you (generic) would do if YOU (generic) were God.

Good answer.

It’s not unlike the question which certain annoying people tried to ask me in college just to get under my skin: Can God make a rock which is too big for Him to move? If not, then how can He be said to be omnipotent?

God cannot be or do anything that’s not absolutely perfect. Nor can God tell anything but the truth. God chose to establish the economy of salvation in the most perfect way possible and then told us about it (through revelation). Consequently, God COULD NOT do otherwise than how He told us it is. God doesn’t change His mind.

 

[LilyM]

God cannot be or do anything that’s not absolutely perfect. Nor can God tell anything but the truth. God chose to establish the economy of salvation in the most perfect way possible and then told us about it (through revelation). Consequently, God COULD NOT do otherwise than how He told us it is. God doesn’t change His mind.

It’s not about God changing his mind - it’s about us understanding his mind (and the way he has organised the economy of salvation) a little better perhaps

If I remember my scripture rightly even St Paul discusses the possibility of salvation for those who are formally ignorant of Christ yet do their best to live according to God’s law. At least some of this reasoning can be applied to limbo as it has been to EENS.

 

[paramedicgirl]

It’s not about God changing his mind - it’s about us understanding his mind (and the way he has organised the economy of salvation) a little better perhaps

If I remember my scripture rightly even St Paul discusses the possibility of salvation for those who are formally ignorant of Christ yet do their best to live according to God’s law. At least some of this reasoning can be applied to limbo as it has been to EENS.

That would be invincible ignorance where the Church acknowledges the goodness of people who through no fault of their own do not have the fullness of the faith. It seems it is indeed being applied to Limbo here, anyway.

 

[Dan-Man916]

when the ITC finally releases its findings, let’s all read it, and then have this discussion again, and see if anyone is willing, on either side, to state a position contrary to the ITC.

 

[TNT]

[sign]Now, all those practicing catholics who would not bother to baptize a dying infant because they are certain of their heavenly destination, please RAISE YOUR PLACARD.[/sign]

Back to the Topic.
WHAT, NO TAKERS??

 

[LilyM]

Back to the Topic.
WHAT, NO TAKERS??

If I as a Christian failed to baptise a dying baby MY eternal destination would be much more doubtful (and certainly MUCH worse) than the child’s!

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

Back to the Topic.
WHAT, NO TAKERS??

I don’t believe anybody here is saying that the Church knows with absolute certainty that unbaptized infants go to heaven–much less is anybody claiming that unbaptized infants of deliberately negligent Christian parents go to heaven. It isn’t a legitimate argument, simply to knock over a straw man with a sarcastic comment.

There is a decided absence of any mention of limbo in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that this should effectively communicate the fact that limbo is not a required belief for Catholics. As TIP alluded to in his original post, the official stance on the salvation of unbaptized children is as follows:

“As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism.” CCC 1261

Also, when you quoted Ott earlier, you did not mention what exactly it is that orthodox Roman Catholics who are faithful to the magisterium like to quote about him:

“The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 114, as quoted in this article)

Ott apparently found the above statement and your quote (“It is de fide that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific vision”) to be compatible. This in turn implies that he did not believe the Church to have any level of certainty regarding limbo.

As far as I can tell, any claims that the Church has declared limbo de fide have resulted from misinterpretation of various texts.

 

[TNT]

I don’t believe anybody here is saying that the Church knows with absolute certainty that unbaptized infants go to heaven–much less is anybody claiming that unbaptized infants of deliberately negligent Christian parents go to heaven. It isn’t a legitimate argument, simply to knock over a straw man with a sarcastic comment.

In other words, you would ACT as though you believed Baptism is necessary for the Beatific vision for an infant and would NOT act as if there was another means open. …nuff said.

There is a decided absence of any mention of limbo in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that this should effectively communicate the fact that limbo is not a required belief for Catholics.

…
Silence in any particular document is and never was a definition of doctrine or the lack of it.
Besides, why does the pope & before as Cd. give it specific attention if it has no place in Catholic Theology? He certainly is not silent.

Also, when you quoted Ott earlier, you did not mention what exactly it is that orthodox Roman Catholics who are faithful to the magisterium like to quote about him:

"The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner…such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 114, as quoted in this article)
Ott apparently found the above statement and your quote (“It is de fide that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific vision”) to be compatible. This in turn implies that he did not believe the Church to have any level of certainty regarding limbo.

I tend to agree that Ott was doubleminded on the issue. He uses the very lowest denominator of references ie not a single one is a pope, doctor, saint or council.

As far as I can tell, any claims that the Church has declared limbo de fide have resulted from misinterpretation of various texts.

Actually, I proved, and anyone can as well, that it is de fide as a necessary conclusion of what IS de fide.

In Part:
Ok, let’s summarize your mostly informative post:
1. It is de fide that one must be cleansed of original sin in order to enter Heaven.
I must add here what you left out:
2. It is de fide that ALL outside Christ, & the BVM, are created with the privations, both natural & supernatural, of that very Original Sin.
Hence
3. It is also de fide that Baptism cleanses one of original sin.
4. It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any).

---

Conclusion:
Infants & preborn who die Unbaptized:
ARE: with original sin
HAVE NO actual sin.
Therefore DO NOT “enter Heaven”.
Therefore DO objectively come under those "with original sin [who] suffer lesser pains (if any).
Inescapable:
The last condition above is simply called the “Hem of hell” or “LIMBO”. Limbo provides the reasonable differential of the hell of Torment and the hell of only a lack of Beatific Vision aka Heaven.

In order for your de fide’s to hold up, which they do, Limbo is inescapable as de fide. The only alternative is the early fathers who included the infants into the hell of torment.
In fact #4 to wit:
It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any).
The VAST majority of these can be none other than those without the faculty of reason or desire, aka infants & preborn.

Is a rather precise de fide definiton of Limbo.

 

[LilyM]

In other words, you would ACT as though you believed Baptism is necessary for the Beatific vision for an infant and would NOT act as if there was another means open. …nuff said.

…
Silence in any particular document is and never was a definition of doctrine or the lack of it.
Besides, why does the pope & before as Cd. give it specific attention if it has no place in Catholic Theology? He certainly is not silent.

I tend to agree that Ott was doubleminded on the issue. He uses the very lowest denominator of references ie not a single one is a pope, doctor, saint or council.

Actually, I proved, and anyone can as well, that it is de fide as a necessary conclusion of what IS de fide.

In Part:
Ok, let’s summarize your mostly informative post:
1. It is de fide that one must be cleansed of original sin in order to enter Heaven.
I must add here what you left out:
2. It is de fide that ALL outside Christ, & the BVM, are created with the privations, both natural & supernatural, of that very Original Sin.
Hence
3. It is also de fide that Baptism cleanses one of original sin.
4. It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any).

---

Conclusion:
Infants & preborn who die Unbaptized:
ARE: with original sin
HAVE NO actual sin.
Therefore DO NOT “enter Heaven”.
Therefore DO objectively come under those "with original sin [who] suffer lesser pains (if any).
Inescapable:
The last condition above is simply called the “Hem of hell” or “LIMBO”. Limbo provides the reasonable differential of the hell of Torment and the hell of only a lack of Beatific Vision aka Heaven.

In order for your de fide’s to hold up, which they do, Limbo is inescapable as de fide. The only alternative is the early fathers who included the infants into the hell of torment.
In fact #4 to wit:
It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any).
The VAST majority of these can be none other than those without the faculty of reason or desire, aka infants & preborn.

Is a rather precise de fide definiton of Limbo.

Surely your argument would only be valid if it was also de fide that baptism is the only way anyone is cleansed of original sin

Don’t think so. Mary herself wasn’t baptised - she was CREATED free of original sin, as was Christ, as were Adam and Eve. Surely God has the option of choosing to create any future person free of Original Sin as he did Mary, or remove original sin in some other way. Don’t we keep saying He isn’t bound by His own sacraments?

All those outside formal union with the Church who are saved by ‘invincible ignorance’ (as even St Paul acknowledges some are) are also saved and achieve heaven WITHOUT benefit of such baptism as you seem to insist on for infants. In spite of the Original Sin they also, as part of the human condition, possess.

If I have a child I will certainly baptise it. It is the one way to be absolutely certain of the child not suffering the effects of dying with uncleansed Original Sin, just as sacramental confession is the one way to be absolutely certain of my own forgiveness in the event that I sin mortally.

Doesn’t mean either of these are the ONLY way such things are done. I can be moved to Perfect Contrition and be cleansed of mortal sin that way without benefit of sacramental confession. And people can achieve salvation and heaven - obviously having been cleansed of original sin - outside of baptism too.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

In other words, you would ACT as though you believed Baptism is necessary for the Beatific vision for an infant and would NOT act as if there was another means open. …nuff said.

I am uncertain how you derived that from what I wrote. Maintaining hope for dead, unbaptized babies and baptizing one’s own child are not contradictory actions.

Silence in any particular document is and never was a definition of doctrine or the lack of it.

This statement doesn’t ring true insofar as the Catechism is concerned. The aim and scope of the Catechism is to cover the necessary beliefs of our Catholic faith. It would certainly be a grave (and rather silly) error if an important and required element of our faith were left out.

Besides, why does the pope & before as Cd. give it specific attention if it has no place in Catholic Theology? He certainly is not silent.

True, he is not silent. But you don’t appear to agree with him, so I’m not sure where you’re going with that. One cannot infer endorsement of a particular stance based on the mere fact that he writes on that subject. The content of that writing is important.

Actually, I proved, and anyone can as well, that it is de fide as a necessary conclusion of what IS de fide.

I maintain that your proof neglects to take into account other binding aspects of our Catholic faith. Furthermore (and with all due respect), I think it would be rather unlikely for you to be able to think up a logical proof that escaped Pope JPII and the bishops when they compiled the (authoritative and binding) Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly states that we may hope that these poor children go to heaven.

 

[TNT]

[sign]Now, all those practicing catholics who would not bother to baptize a dying infant because they are certain of their heavenly destination, please RAISE YOUR PLACARD.[/sign]

Still NO takers, which is a good sign.

BTW:
To whomever, I did NOT limit this act to “negligent christian parents”.
I meant ANY dying infant. Period. Even of ignorant or no living parents at all.
As a recent poster put it: “[Because] We have* certainty* in an infant Baptism.” (paraphr).

That’s all folks. Good Thread.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Still NO takers, which is a good sign.

BTW:
To whomever, I did NOT limit this act to “negligent christian parents”.
I meant ANY dying infant. Period. Even of ignorant or no living parents at all.
As a recent poster put it: “[Because] We have certainty in an infant Baptism.” (paraphr).

I’ve often wondered if I ever get in that situation, with a dying child in the back of my ambulance, and emotional parents in there with us, how they would respond to me if I ask them if their child is baptized. I wonder what their reaction would be.

 

[TNT]

I’ve often wondered if I ever get in that situation, with a dying child in the back of my ambulance, and emotional parents in there with us, how they would respond to me if I ask them if their child is baptized. I wonder what their reaction would be.

In Canada, Ya might end up in the gurney of an ambulance yurself. But hay, what’s better than to meet yur Maker with the last act being an attempt at saving a soul?

 

[paramedicgirl]

In Canada, Ya might end up in the gurney of an ambulance yurself. But hay, what’s better than to meet yur Maker with the last act being an attempt at saving a soul?

I could always tell them it’s a medical procedure. In Canada it might pass as one.

(TNT your PM box is full)

 

[paramedicgirl]

I could always tell them it’s a medical procedure. In Canada it might pass as one.

(TNT your PM box is full)

 

[TNT]

I could always tell them it’s a medical procedure. In Canada it might pass as one.

(TNT your PM box is full)

Im clearin out all the death threats as I post, so outa be lotsa room in minute.

 

[paramedicgirl]

angelqueen.org
Im clearin out all the death threats as I post, so outa be lotsa room in minute.

 

[TNT]

I could always tell them it’s a medical procedure. In Canada it might pass as one.

Jis use the word “SPIRIT” 3 r 4 exta times. It aways works with th natives anyway.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Jis use the word “SPIRIT” 3 r 4 exta times. It aways works with th natives anyway.

Seriously, though, if I am ever in that situation, don’t I have to have the parent’s permission to baptize, or can I do it without them knowing? One day I may come across this, and I do wonder about it.

 

[TNT]

Seriously, though, if I am ever in that situation, don’t I have to have the parent’s permission to baptize, or can I do it without them knowing? One day I may come across this, and I do wonder about it.

1. If the parents are in a sane conditon and
2. They will be available before the infant does die.
   The answer is NO.
   Otherwise have at it.
   Jis have a card printed up n handy so’s ya can read it. You know how you get flustered.