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

[TNT]

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.

I guess I’m not getting through.
Example:
**YOU: **“I misjudged in the rain and WRECKED my car.”
**ME “Oh, you had an ACCIDENT!”
YOU:“No no, I WRECKED my car in the rain”.
ME:"Then you did have an ACCIDENT!"
YOU: “No, one cannot say I had an accident. That is speculation.”
** --------------------
Limbo has 2 parts:
De Fide.:

1. The fact that one who has Original Sin Only, goes to hell without baptism to remove the guilt of Original Sin.
   Speculation / tradition
2. The pain of sense removed, and natural contentment exists IN THAT PART OF HELL.

---

LilyM’ s
**Speculation / tradition / novel idea is:
**“Mystical baptisms” that remove the guilt of Original Sin are allowed per CCC / and JPII.
In fact they are allowed for all without the faculty of reason.
Therefore, I can believe all such are NOT in HELL but in Heaven and not defy the de fide above.
However, it does make a wreck of it in that it becomes a useless or irrelevant doctrine.

In addition, they are Saints to whom we can pray & honor.
Now, not that all this defines UNIVERSAL SALVATION: BUT, it is a necessary component of it.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I guess I’m not getting through.
Example:
**YOU: **“I misjudged in the rain and WRECKED my car.”
**ME “Oh, you had an ACCIDENT!”
YOU:“No no, I WRECKED my car in the rain”.
ME:"Then you did have an ACCIDENT!"
YOU: “No, one cannot say I had an accident. That is speculation.”
** --------------------
Limbo has 2 parts:
De Fide.:

1. The fact that one who has Original Sin Only, goes to hell without baptism to remove the guilt of Original Sin.
   Speculation / tradition
2. The pain of sense removed, and natural contentment exists IN THAT PART OF HELL.

---

**LilyM’ s
**Speculation / t****radition / novel idea is:
“Mystical baptisms” that remove the guilt of Original Sin are allowed per CCC / and JPII.
In fact they are allowed for all without the faculty of reason.
Therefore, I can believe all such are NOT in HELL but in Heaven and not defy the de fide above.
However, it does make a wreck of it in that it becomes a useless or irrelevant doctrine.

In addition, they are Saints to whom we can pray & honor.
Now, not that all this defines UNIVERSAL SALVATION: BUT, it is a necessary component of it.

This speculation is dangerous territory, because it may have the consequence of parents interpreting it to mean that baptism is no longer necessary for their children, which of course would demean the doctrine of original sin, which in turn would remit the doctrine that baptism is necessary for gaining eternal life.

 

[MTD]

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.

According to An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead, 1891-1921, you do not need the permission of the parents to baptize a dying child.

“You cannot baptize a person against his will. Neither can you baptize an infant whose parents are unwilling to have the child baptized, or when the child will not be brought up in the Catholic religion. But if the child is dying, it can and should be baptized, even without the consent of the parents.”

If you cannot establish whether the child has already been baptized or baptized properly, of course you can and should baptize him conditionally.

I’m sure you already know this stuff anyway…

Maria

 

[paramedicgirl]

According to An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead, 1891-1921, you do not need the permission of the parents to baptize a dying child.

“You cannot baptize a person against his will. Neither can you baptize an infant whose parents are unwilling to have the child baptized, or when the child will not be brought up in the Catholic religion. But if the child is dying, it can and should be baptized, even without the consent of the parents.”

If you cannot establish whether the child has already been baptized or baptized properly, of course you can and should baptize him conditionally.

I’m sure you already know this stuff anyway…

Maria

Thanks for looking that up, Maria. The part I’m unsure of is if I would have the courage to baptize a dying child in front of parents who may take offense, were that situation ever to occur in my job.

 

[TNT]

Thanks for looking that up, Maria. The part I’m unsure of is if I would have the courage to baptize a dying child in front of parents who may take offense, were that situation ever to occur in my job.

Look,
if you are (yur) that concerned do the following:

1. Keep a wet sponge around to “sop n sooth” the “fevered” brow.
2. Learn the Baptism in LATIN.
3. Mumble it like you were talking to yurself.
4. Whatever ya do, do NOT start burning Incense r candelabras

Case solved.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Look,
if you are that concerned do the following:

1. Keep a wet sponge around to “sop n sooth” the “fevered” brow.
2. Learn the Baptism in LATIN.
3. Mumble it like you were talking to yurself.
4. Whatever ya do, do NOT start burning Incense.

Case solved.

Thanks! Seriously, I hope never come across this, though.

 

[MTD]

Thanks for looking that up, Maria. The part I’m unsure of is if I would have the courage to baptize a dying child in front of parents who may take offense, were that situation ever to occur in my job.

I’m sure it’s difficult for me to relate since I’m not a paramedic and so haven’t been in tough situations like that, but just think of the fact that you’re sending a soul straight to heaven! Oh, and there’s the opposite to think about too: how awful you’d feel afterwards if you didn’t baptize for fear of angering the parents. You’d never be able to forgive yourself for the rest of your life.

Maria

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m sure it’s difficult for me to relate since I’m not a paramedic and so haven’t been in tough situations like that, but just think of the fact that you’re sending a soul straight to heaven! Oh, and there’s the opposite to think about too: how awful you’d feel afterwards if you didn’t baptize for fear of angering the parents. You’d never be able to forgive yourself for the rest of your life.

Maria

What I worry about is getting beat over the head by some emotionally distraught parent as I’m trying to perform an emergency baptism. Like I said, I hope the situation never presents itself. I actually like TNT’s advice of learning the rite in Latin.

**Originally Posted by TNT **
Look,
if you are that concerned do the following:

1. Keep a wet sponge around to “sop n sooth” the “fevered” brow.
2. Learn the Baptism in LATIN.
3. Mumble it like you were talking to yurself.
4. Whatever ya do, do NOT start burning Incense.

Case solved.

I have several Catholic nurse friends who used to routinely baptize aborted babies, but I’m not sure those were valid baptisms as the baby would already be dead when they baptized it. Nevertheless, they did it many times.

 

[LilyM]

This speculation is dangerous territory, because it may have the consequence of parents interpreting it to mean that baptism is no longer necessary for their children, which of course would demean the doctrine of original sin, which in turn would remit the doctrine that baptism is necessary for gaining eternal life.

I’ve said this elsewhere I believe - parents for the most part want every possible advantage for their children. They will send them to private schools if they can afford them, or teach them at home, rather than hoping that public schools will be good enough.

They will spend ridiculous amounts of money on music lessons/dance lessons/sports coaching if their child shows the slightest inclination in any of these directions, on the off-chance that they actually have some talent.

This goes for baptism as well, at least in my personal experience. Every Christian parent I know, even the ones who are most lacking in knowledge of and commitment to their faith, has had their children baptised. They want the certainty and security that the sacrament brings.

I mean what other reason is there for the Orthodox (who as I understand it don’t have the concepts of limbo or original sin) or Protestants who don’t have these concepts either, to baptise their children? And yet they do.

 

[rwoehmke]

Is the topic discussed anywhere in Ott’s book on Catholic Doctrine? I don’t recall ever hearing or reading the words “De Fide” in 16 years of Catholic Education before Vatican II. We were surely taught the existence of Limbo by nuns, by priests, and by our parents.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’ve said this elsewhere I believe - parents for the most part want every possible advantage for their children. They will send them to private schools if they can afford them, or teach them at home, rather than hoping that public schools will be good enough.

They will spend ridiculous amounts of money on music lessons/dance lessons/sports coaching if their child shows the slightest inclination in any of these directions, on the off-chance that they actually have some talent.

This goes for baptism as well, at least in my personal experience. Every Christian parent I know, even the ones who are most lacking in knowledge of and commitment to their faith, has had their children baptised. They want the certainty and security that the sacrament brings.

I mean what other reason is there for the Orthodox (who as I understand it don’t have the concepts of limbo or original sin) or Protestants who don’t have these concepts either, to baptise their children? And yet they do.

Lily, do you have any information on whether baptisms have been consistent in their numbers? I know a good many people who have put off baptizing their babies, and if they interpret the Church’s position on Limbo to mean that original sin is no longer a doctrine, then why would they bother to prepare for a baptism? Nostalgia? I hardly think so.

 

[LilyM]

Lily, do you have any information on whether baptisms have been consistent in their numbers? I know a good many people who have put off baptizing their babies, and if they interpret the Church’s position on Limbo to mean that original sin is no longer a doctrine, then why would they bother to prepare for a baptism? Nostalgia? I hardly think so.

OK - obviously we have conflicting personal experience. I don’t know where such data would be available from, unfortunately. What is needed, as in the case of the sacrament of penance, is good catechesis as to the fact that those who don’t baptise their children are exchanging vague hope of remission of Original Sin for certainty.

In the meantime, God certainly works in mysterious ways - and if he can convince my sister, who at the time of her daughter’s birth positively declared she wouldn’t have her baptised, to relent a few months later then he can certainly work on anyone!

I think some serious prayer for those thinking of not baptising their children is in order. I believe my prayers and those of my parents helped in the case of my sister

 

[paramedicgirl]

OK - obviously we have conflicting personal experience. I don’t know where such data would be available from, unfortunately. What is needed, as in the case of the sacrament of penance, is good catechesis as to the fact that those who don’t baptise their children are exchanging vague hope of remission of Original Sin for certainty.

In the meantime, God certainly works in mysterious ways - and if he can convince my sister, who at the time of her daughter’s birth positively declared she wouldn’t have her baptised, to relent a few months later then he can certainly work on anyone!

I think some serious prayer for those thinking of not baptising their children is in order. I believe my prayers and those of my parents helped in the case of my sister

There’s no question that prayer is beneficial. I’m a firm believer in the merits of prayer, but my concern lies in the very real possibility of misinterpretation of the Church’s position of Limbo. People tend to be spiritually lazy, and soak up whatever they need to to keep themselves that way. I believe we are entering dangerous territory if we fail to properly catechize the faithful. And look at the recent track record for catechesis. It isn’t that good, is it?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

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.

And that’s the debate here, because of a number of people here adamantly believe limbo is de fide.

What happens to unbaptized infants or “virtuous pagans” is a matter of theological speculation. Some theologians hypothesized that they remain in limbo.

Theologians will theorize as long as there are theologians. However, it still appears to me that the place known as “limbo” (which is, apparently, the “nicer” part of Hell") is a place people thought up because it fit with their theories, not because it was passed down from the apostles through Sacred Tradition.

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.

And I quite agree that the CCC does not, in any way, say that limbo exists. The trouble is that some seem to believe that the CCC is quite heretical and that believing in limbo is a required belief.

Limbo has 2 parts:
De Fide.:

1. The fact that one who has Original Sin Only, goes to hell without baptism to remove the guilt of Original Sin.

From the CCC, which, I suppose, is pointless to use as a source here. All the same:
CCC 405:

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

CCC 1257:

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Speculation / tradition
2. The pain of sense removed, and natural contentment exists IN THAT PART OF HELL.

So, in your opinion, Catholics *must *believe all the unbaptized go to Hell, but they are free to disagree on what the experience of Hell is like for different people?

Speculation / tradition / novel idea is:
“Mystical baptisms” that remove the guilt of Original Sin are allowed per CCC / and JPII.
In fact they are allowed for all without the faculty of reason.

Therefore, I can believe all such are NOT in HELL but in Heaven and not defy the de fide above.
However, it does make a wreck of it in that it becomes a useless or irrelevant doctrine.

In addition, they are Saints to whom we can pray & honor.
Now, not that all this defines UNIVERSAL SALVATION: BUT, it is a necessary component of it.

Would I be correct in saying that you don’t believe the CCC is heretical on this, but you are concerned that its wording might lend support to universalism?

God bless!

 

[TNT]

And that’s the debate here, because of a number of people here adamantly believe limbo is de fide.

Theologians will theorize as long as there are theologians. However, it still appears to me that the place known as “limbo” (which is, apparently, the “nicer” part of Hell") is a place people thought up because it fit with their theories, not because it was passed down from the apostles through Sacred Tradition.

And I quite agree that the CCC does not, in any way, say that limbo exists. The trouble is that some seem to believe that the CCC is quite heretical and that believing in limbo is a required belief.

From the CCC, which, I suppose, is pointless to use as a source here. All the same:

So, in your opinion, Catholics *must *believe all the unbaptized go to Hell, but they are free to disagree on what the experience of Hell is like for different people?

Would I be correct in saying that you don’t believe the CCC is heretical on this, but you are concerned that its wording might lend support to universalism?

God bless!

I can’t object to anything you said EXCEPT: “in your opinion”. Wrong. I gave you plenty of ex cathedra’s w/Scripture & I could give alot more of the Church Fathers & Doctors to support those ex cathedra’s.
If I intend something to be my opinion I’ll insert “IMHO, of course”.
All the “opinions” are from documents or posters that are vague, subjective and none prior to 1960 or ex cathedra.
Now that’s opinion.

BTW:
Name ONE paragraph in the CCC on Salvation that has NOT moved closer to Universal Salvation than any prior Council or Catechism on the same subject.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Then, as I said in the thread on salvation and the unbaptized, it appears that the Church has contradicted itself and has either begun to teach falsely or has done so in the past. If the Church of Christ is an infallible, visible Church, then it must be found elsewhere. I thank you for your explanations.

God bless!

 

[LilyM]

There’s no question that prayer is beneficial. I’m a firm believer in the merits of prayer, but my concern lies in the very real possibility of misinterpretation of the Church’s position of Limbo. People tend to be spiritually lazy, and soak up whatever they need to to keep themselves that way. I believe we are entering dangerous territory if we fail to properly catechize the faithful. And look at the recent track record for catechesis. It isn’t that good, is it?

And a scare campaign suggesting inaccurately that all the unbaptised are certainly damned is any better? Plenty were taught that before and after Vatican 2 and the numbers of baptised still dropped.

 

[paramedicgirl]

And a scare campaign suggesting inaccurately that all the unbaptised are certainly damned is any better? Plenty were taught that before and after Vatican 2 and the numbers of baptised still dropped.

Who is suggesting a scare campaign??? I was talking about good, sound catechesis that the Church has not dropped any of her doctrines (in particular, those pertaining to original sin and the necessity of baptism for eternal salvation).

 

[LilyM]

Who is suggesting a scare campaign??? I was talking about good, sound catechesis that the Church has not dropped any of her doctrines (in particular, those pertaining to original sin and the necessity of baptism for eternal salvation).

I know my father, who is a doctor, was grieving for a long time over one baby who he was treating and had to be rushed to hospital - it died suddenly en route without him or its parents having had a chance to give an emergency baptism.

I’d qualify anything that needlessly scars a person that much as a scare campaign.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I know my father, who is a doctor, was grieving for a long time over one baby who he was treating and had to be rushed to hospital - it died suddenly en route without him or its parents having had a chance to give an emergency baptism.

I’d qualify anything that needlessly scars a person that much as a scare campaign.

So, do you seriously think that catechism is a scare campaign???