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

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Iambic_Pen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JezuUfamTobie said:
You are bound by the revealed truth. That is why it would be sinful for you to presume God’s mercy and withhold baptism from your children (or hypothetical children, as the case may be).

God, however, is not…
Click to expand...
Who speaks of wilfully denying baptism to any child?

As I’ve said in another thread, I know an awful lot of Catholics and Orthodox whose faith is weak or almost non-existent, to the point where they either would have never heard of limbo or would scoff at the idea. Funnily enough they’ve all baptised their children!

What parent in their right mind wouldn’t exchange hope for certainty, or give their child the spiritual advantages that the sacrament of baptism offers? It would be akin to not sending them to private school when well able to do so in the HOPE that public schools will be OK for the child.
 
Walking_Home said:
More sinful–would be to use what we do not know of God to bend Him to our will.

We would be pitting what we know of God (revealed Truth ) against God (what we do not know).
Click to expand...
Look, I see where you’re coming from. But God’s mercy and love for children is also a part of revealed Truth. It is not heretical or unreasonable to conjecture (as the Church has done, rather officially and publicly) that God may extend His mercy in certain ways.

Again, God is not bound by pitiful human understanding of his supremely rational, perfectly just, and infinitely merciful being. It is the limbo speculation which attempts to predict God’s will and bind him to rules churned out by an imperfectly executed logical “proof”. The open assertion that “we don’t know, but we can hope babies go to heaven” leaves God’s job to Him. Much less presumptuous, I’d say.
 
LilyM said:
Who speaks of wilfully denying baptism to any child?
Click to expand...
(Psst, if you’ll go back and read… we’re on the same side. I’m not sure why you jumped on that particular sentence out of context… 🤷 )
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
Look, I see where you’re coming from. But God’s mercy and love for children is also a part of revealed Truth. It is not heretical or unreasonable to conjecture (as the Church has done, rather officially and publicly) that God may extend His mercy in certain ways.

Again, God is not bound by pitiful human understanding of his supremely rational, perfectly just, and infinitely merciful being. It is the limbo speculation which attempts to predict God’s will and bind him to rules churned out by an imperfectly executed logical “proof”. The open assertion that “we don’t know, but we can hope babies go to heaven” leaves God’s job to Him. Much less presumptuous, I’d say.
Click to expand...
God is merciful—that is why he left us the Church and the sacraments. We cannot use what we do not know about God to blow his sacrament of baptism out of the water. More presumptuous would be to use this to bend His will to ours. It is His will after all–that wants us baptized.
 
Walking_Home said:
God is merciful—that is why he left us the Church and the sacraments. We cannot use what we do not know about God to blow his sacrament of baptism out of the water. More presumptuous would be to use this to bend His will to ours. It is His will after all–that wants us baptized.
Click to expand...
I’ve said this in the other thread. We are indeed bound to the sacraments. This doesn’t require that we bind those who are unaware of the very sacraments themselves in the same way as we who have knowledge are bound.

Nor does our hope dispense us from the sacraments. Don’t we all hope for Perfect Contrition at the hour of death? Don’t we believe that such will release us *and all the baptised *from mortal sin as effectively as confession? Don’t we who have it available to us still go to Confession, though, when we DO mortally sin, in order to exchange hope for certainty?
 
Walking_Home said:
God is merciful—that is why he left us the Church and the sacraments. We cannot use what we do not know about God to blow his sacrament of baptism out of the water. More presumptuous would be to use this to bend His will to ours. It is His will after all–that wants us baptized.
Click to expand...
I remember getting locked in a debate with you on another thread, with this exact outcome. You do not appear to be reading thoroughly (with full comprehension) what others have posted, and you keep bringing up a grievance which has already been addressed and shown to be groundless–in this case about the absence of limbo invalidating our beliefs regarding Baptism.

So I will repeat this again: lack of belief in limbo **in no way ** threatens our Catholic beliefs on Baptism and original sin. I and another poster have already shown why this is so, and I have posted a Catechism reference as evidence. Please realize that nobody here is challenging the dogma of original sin, nor the sacrament of Baptism. It would be most helpful if you would respond to the sum of what is being said and refrain from misrepresenting the views of the people with whom you are debating.

Do you truly believe that there is a logical inconsistency in the Catechism and in the views of our Holy Father?
 
Walking_Home said:
You left out that limbo and its reference to 1261 is also to be included within the context of baptism. Your reference to “Let the children come unto Me”–backs infant baptism and its cleansing of original sin----Not the denial of original sin.

CCC second edition: pg. 817

Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals

CCC pg. 759
Baptism:
of infants, 403, 1231, 1233, etc

CCC 403
Following St. Pual, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. 291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
Click to expand...
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm search engine for the catechism of the Catholic Church. Search for limbo.
 
TNT said:
Jis use the word “SPIRIT” 3 r 4 exta times. It aways works with th natives anyway.
Click to expand...
Not to change the subject much, but are you writing most of your notes on a Blackberry?

By the way, you’re misspelling Limbaugh. :cool:
 
paramedicgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...
I once saw an episode of “All in the Family” where Archie baptized his grandson against the parents’ desires. This was the last scene on that particular show. No applause, comments, or other reactions.

Perfectly valid, it seems.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
In the discussion on universalism, TNT suggested that I start this thread. I’m not trying to argue one way or the other. As some of you know, I was raised Protestant, so this whole limbo concept is fairly new to me, even if it is not new to the Church.

My understanding of the issue is that people like St. Augustine theorized that the unbaptized infants were damned, though with less “pain of sense” than those who had committed personal sin. As time went by, theologians, troubled by the apparent lack of God’s mercy in such a position, theorized that maybe there was some sort of alternate destination, between Heaven and Hell (perhaps a part of Hell, separate from all the nastiness), where the unbaptized infants could experience a sort of natural happiness. I think I’ve read somewhere that some people thought that righteous non-Catholics might possibly go here as well, though I may be wrong.

This teaching became very popular, though my understanding is that it was never made a dogma of the Church.

In the Catechism produced after Vatican II, the Church simply states that we entrust unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and hope and pray that they may somehow attain to salvation. While many Catholics find this belief encouraging, and a sign of true humility on the part of the Church, being willing to admit it does not know something, others believe this stance will lead to universalism. Some even seem positively horrified at the thought that unbaptized infants (or ignorant pagans, following God to the best of their knowledge) *may *somehow go to Heaven.

So, to repeat the post title, “Is Limbo a Capital ‘T’ Tradition & de fide?”

Thanks and God bless!
Click to expand...
You have to distinguish between Limbo as the place of rest where the just resided prior to Christ’s death and resurrection and the limbo where unbaptized infancts reside. The former is a matter of Tradition and de fide; the latter is a matter of theological speculation.

In the Creed, we recite how Christ descended into “hell.” Hell, in this instance, does not refer to the place of the damned. It refers to Limbo (in Hebrew Sheol). It is the place where Adam, Eve, Abraham, David, the Holy Prophets, etc., rested before Christ came and preached the Gospel to them. Their souls were taken to Heaven at some point after Christ’s Resurrection. This is a matter of Catholic faith and dogma.

What happens to unbaptized infants or “virtuous pagans” is a matter of theological speculation. Some theologians hypothesized that they remain in limbo.
 
TNT said:
That’s good point! According to all the Conciliar documents it’s the LIVING Magisterium. How many times I’ve heard that. Well, the sword has 2 edges.
Click to expand...
And the living Magisterium hasn’t declared anything infallible…

YET!!!
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
In the discussion on universalism, TNT suggested that I start this thread. I’m not trying to argue one way or the other. As some of you know, I was raised Protestant, so this whole limbo concept is fairly new to me, even if it is not new to the Church.

My understanding of the issue is that people like St. Augustine theorized that the unbaptized infants were damned, though with less “pain of sense” than those who had committed personal sin. As time went by, theologians, troubled by the apparent lack of God’s mercy in such a position, theorized that maybe there was some sort of alternate destination, between Heaven and Hell (perhaps a part of Hell, separate from all the nastiness), where the unbaptized infants could experience a sort of natural happiness. I think I’ve read somewhere that some people thought that righteous non-Catholics might possibly go here as well, though I may be wrong.

This teaching became very popular, though my understanding is that it was never made a dogma of the Church.

In the Catechism produced after Vatican II, the Church simply states that we entrust unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and hope and pray that they may somehow attain to salvation. While many Catholics find this belief encouraging, and a sign of true humility on the part of the Church, being willing to admit it does not know something, others believe this stance will lead to universalism. Some even seem positively horrified at the thought that unbaptized infants (or ignorant pagans, following God to the best of their knowledge) *may *somehow go to Heaven.

So, to repeat the post title, “Is Limbo a Capital ‘T’ Tradition & de fide?”

Thanks and God bless!
Click to expand...
I believe that Limbo is a smal t tradition and definitely not dei fide.
Tradition began with the need to find a place for the unbaptised righteous and unbaptised infants and limbo (edge) was proposed as a place without suffering. It is not dei fide. Look up your CCC. No Limbo there.
Grace Angel.
 
Has anybody even seen this mysteious “document”? I’d love to see how they filled, what I have heard is, 40 pages on this topic.

DustinsDad
 
BobP123 said:
I once saw an episode of “All in the Family” where Archie baptized his grandson against the parents’ desires. This was the last scene on that particular show. No applause, comments, or other reactions.

Perfectly valid, it seems.
Click to expand...
And that was ex-cathedra??? Good old Archie!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top