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

[FTS]

Formerly I was posting in the topic “Salvation of Unbaptised,” but it got closed down. It appears this was because of personal attacks being made, which is never necessary and doesn’t belong in our discussions…

The argument I am trying to drive home is that the teaching of the Catholic Church allows faithful Catholics to believe that these individuals who die without water baptism, and are either below age of reason (miscarried babies, aborted babies, children who die in accidents or sickness) or are incapable of true free will and reason (mentally retarded) go to Limbo OR are allowed to believe that they can enter into Heaven. It is vitally important for people to know that Limbo is NOT infallible doctrine, and that the need for baptism can be reconciled with these individuals who die without water baptism…they could be miraculously baptised by desire. Also, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has expressed his personal opinion on the matter, as long ago as 1985, in rejecting Limbo and believing that these individuals can enter into Heaven by the mercy of God.

After reading the ITC document and other writings by Catholic theologians and apologists, I realized four possible theories in which these individuals could be baptised by desire…

1. At the very moment before death, they are supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him. In Heaven it it is speculated that we will appear in our glorified bodies in the age range of 20s to 30s, regardless of whether we die at 6 months or at 90 years of age. It could be speculated that God supernaturally infuses in these individuals free will and reason before death to reject Him and go to Hell, or to accept Him, be baptised by desire, and enter into Heaven.
2. The desire for these individual’s salvation, and prayers from saints or angels in Heaven for these babies could, through the unique allowance and power of God, enable a Baptism of Desire for the child.
3. All people have a built-in desire for God. Some of us pursue this and others don’t, through their own free will. Since babies are innocent and have not chosen to reject God but rather desire God, immediately preceding death this built-in desire for God that all humans have from the moment of conception would create a valid baptism of desire.
4. In essence, to be baptised is to have your Original Sin removed and be given sanctifying grace in the soul, the dwelling of the Holy Trinity within you. When we baptise babies with water, it is the desire of the parent or caretaker for this child that leads to their baptism. There is belief that God could supernaturally supply baptism for the person, a form of baptism by desire. The desire for their baptism and salvation is supplied by and comes from God, and He supernaturally removes their Original Sin, placing sanctifying grace in their souls before death. This correlates with God’s salvific will, the fact that He wills all to be saved and is not restricted and bound by the Sacrament of Water Baptism. He can use extraordinary means to impart His grace to others.

After reflection, I am beginning to believe that the 4th theory is most plausible.

 

[kellyanne]

FTS:

When we baptise babies with water, it is the desire of the parent or caretaker for this child that leads to their baptism. There is belief that God could supernaturally supply baptism for the person, a form of baptism by desire. The desire for their baptism and salvation is supplied by and comes from God.

I agree with all of your other options, but this aspect is one that I never considered before.

If the parents can will salvation for their infant and are able to bestow the sacrament without their knowledge, consent, or even reasoning or desire, how much more our heavenly Father would will salvation for these innocents! And in some way not known to us bestow the capability to them at death.

Absolutely beautiful, FTS.

Last night Scott Hahn gave some very excellent teachings on the covenant relationship with God within the family of the Church. Isn’t that what the original circumcision meant to do? Surely, not to remove any type of sin, but to permit the child to enter into the familial covenant relationship of the people of God.

Baptism should be seen as far more than just taking away original sin and escape from “Limbo,” but more importantly as the entry into this covenant relationship, entitling the person to all of the privileges of sonship and to receive the other sacraments.

I think we all need to review the absolutely awesome meaning of “covenant.”

Kell

 

[Grace_Angel]

The Latin version of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae does lack the phrase “your child, who is now living in the Lord.” Still, this phrase, which John Paul II used in the original version of the encyclical, does *not *necessarily contradict the Catholic concept of limbo, for the souls in limbo are indeed living in the Lord. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, they are united with God through natural knowledge and love, and this state may be correctly described as life. After all, those children are not dead.

According to St. Paul, citing the poet Aratus of Soli, we all live in God:

***“In him we live and move and have our being” (*Acts 17:28; 1986 NAB).

James Akin’s blog entry on limbo does not represent a sound Catholic approach to this topic. Catholics should not allow themselves to be misinformed by such comments. Instead, we should listen to Catholic tradition and the Magisterium, both of which teach us that the souls of unbaptized infants, since those infants die in original sin only, descend into hell for some kind of punishment. This Catholic dogma, taught by two general councils (Lyons II and Florence), need not mean that unbaptized infants suffer in what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (the “pain of sense”), but it does mean that they are deprived of the beatific vision. As Pope Innocent III teaches, this deprivation is the penalty for original sin.

It is misleading to say that “limbo is not a dogma” as if that ends the discussion for a Catholic. Even though limbo is not a dogma, the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision is a dogma.

Keep and spread the Faith.

It is definitely a small “t” tradition and definitely NOT de Fide
Grace Angel;

 

[FTS]

The Latin version of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae does lack the phrase “your child, who is now living in the Lord.” Still, this phrase, which John Paul II used in the original version of the encyclical, does *not *necessarily contradict the Catholic concept of limbo, for the souls in limbo are indeed living in the Lord. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, they are united with God through natural knowledge and love, and this state may be correctly described as life. After all, those children are not dead.

We should listen to Catholic tradition and the Magisterium, both of which teach us that the souls of unbaptized infants, since those infants die in original sin only, descend into hell for some kind of punishment. This Catholic dogma, taught by two general councils (Lyons II and Florence), need not mean that unbaptized infants suffer in what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (the “pain of sense”), but it does mean that they are deprived of the beatific vision. As Pope Innocent III teaches, this deprivation is the penalty for original sin.

It is misleading to say that “limbo is not a dogma” as if that ends the discussion for a Catholic. Even though limbo is not a dogma, the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision is a dogma.

Keep and spread the Faith.

If Limbo were true, it is on the fringe of Hell, and those who go to Limbo are damned to Hell, but do not suffer physical suffering, only the loss of beautic vision. Christ Jesus opened the gates to Heaven, and those who go to Heaven are saved by His Passion, Death, and Resurrection. To go to Limbo is not to be saved, but rather to be damned. albeit the lightest punishment in Hell. Therefore those in Hell are not merited by the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again, the idea of Limbo would not be one of salvation, but one of damnation. Salvation is not merely the lack of suffering physical torment in Hell, salvation is entering into Heaven to be with God forever. Therefore, those who believe in Limbo are indeed saying that these individuals do not benefit from the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They do not receive salvation, but rather damnation and punishment.

According to Limbo-believers, those who die in a state of mortal sin are punished and damned to Hell to suffer physical pain as well as the pain of the absence of God, and those who die with the stain of Original Sin are punished and damned to Limbo, which resides in Hell, suffering only the loss of the beautic vision. If you are being punished in the afterlife, you have not received salvation. Both the Council of Lyons II and Florence teach that those who die with Original Sin only and those who die in Mortal Sin both are punished and descend to Hell, but to receive differing punishments. This teaching is of course hypothetical in nature, stating this is the case if anyone dies with Original Sin only, which wasn’t explicitly revealed, just the result that would occur if this happened. Notice the terminology used…it is not “For some this will happen, for others this will happen”, which implies certitude. Rather the language is “for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only” for the Council of Lyons II and “the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only” for the Council of Florence. It clarifies what would happen should someone die with Original Sin only, it never states whether or not individuals will actually die in Original Sin only. But for someone believing in Limbo, accordingly you must believe those there are in Hell, and are suffering punishment, albeit not physical, and have not received salvation but rather damnation.

I do not agree with Limbo. While I realize that anyone who would die with the stain of Original Sin would not be able to enter into Heaven and would suffer the loss of beautic vision in Hell, as taught at councils previously, I do not believe anyone actually does die in the state of Original Sin only, because I believe these individuals are miraculously baptised by desire and enter into Heaven. Again, while a faithful Catholic may believe in Limbo, a faithful Catholic may also believe these individuals go to Heaven, as I do, and as Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, the ITC theologians, and many other Catholics believe. It is time to separate the facts from the fiction. Limbo is NOT infallible doctrine, and it never was. On the contrary, Limbo is theological speculation. A faithful Catholic may believe in it, but a faithful Catholic is also free to believe that these individuals enter into God’s Heavenly Kingdom.

 

[Fuerza]

I do not agree with Limbo. While I realize that anyone who would die with the stain of Original Sin would not be able to enter into Heaven and would suffer the loss of beautic vision in Hell, as taught at councils previously, I do not believe anyone actually does die in the state of Original Sin only, because I believe these individuals are miraculously baptised by desire and enter into Heaven. Again, while a faithful Catholic may believe in Limbo, a faithful Catholic may also believe these individuals go to Heaven, as I do, and as Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, the ITC theologians, and many other Catholics believe. It is time to separate the facts from the fiction. Limbo is NOT infallible doctrine, and it never was. On the contrary, Limbo is theological speculation. A faithful Catholic may believe in it, but a faithful Catholic is also free to believe that these individuals enter into God’s Heavenly Kingdom.

If no one actually ever died in a state of original sin, there would have been no reason for the Holy Spirit to guide the councils of Florence and Lyons II to make an infallible statement about the fate of those who die only in original sin. The separate punishment to which these souls go is what we Limbo-believers call, well, Limbo. As I stated earlier, I do believe that many unbaptized infants (as well as possibly some devout Jews, Muslims, and pagans) will be granted an implicit baptism and saved based upon what they would have done had they known the truth of Christ.

There are, however, those infants who would have grown up and died in mortal sin. These are those souls for whom I believe limbo is designed. They cannot be justly punished with hellfire since they never committed any actual sins, but neither can they be saved because they ultimately would have chosen not to be. Limbo, therefore, is a great example of God’s justice, mercy, and respect for our free will. He spares these souls the torments of Hell, while at the same time respecting their choice to reject Him. Think about it… If God were to save these souls, He would in effect be forcing Himself upon them and thus their love for Him would not be free.

Just my personal thoughts on the subject.

 

[FTS]

If no one actually ever died in a state of original sin, there would have been no reason for the Holy Spirit to guide the councils of Florence and Lyons II to make an infallible statement about the fate of those who die only in original sin. The separate punishment to which these souls go is what we Limbo-believers call, well, Limbo. As I stated earlier, I do believe that many unbaptized infants (as well as possibly some devout Jews, Muslims, and pagans) will be granted an implicit baptism and saved based upon what they would have done had they known the truth of Christ.

There are, however, those infants who would have grown up and died in mortal sin. These are those souls for whom I believe limbo is designed. They cannot be justly punished with hellfire since they never committed any actual sins, but neither can they be saved because they ultimately would have chosen not to be. Limbo, therefore, is a great example of God’s justice, mercy, and respect for our free will. He spares these souls the torments of Hell, while at the same time respecting their choice to reject Him. Think about it… If God were to save these souls, He would in effect be forcing Himself upon them and thus their love for Him would not be free.

Just my personal thoughts on the subject.

If it is true that nobody dies in Original Sin only, which I do believe, the teaching of the Councils was not pointless. They taught the truth that any person with Original Sin on their soul at death cannot enter Heaven and would suffer loss of the beautic vision. This is pure truth, as is the necessity of baptism, the removal of Original Sin and receival of sanctifying grace in the soul. However, that teaching never claims that this in fact happens, only that if a person died in that manner they couldn’t enter Heaven. Notice the terminology used…it is not “For some this will happen, for others this will happen”, which implies certitude. Rather the language is “for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only” for the Council of Lyons II and “the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only” for the Council of Florence. It clarifies what would happen should someone die with Original Sin only, it never states whether or not individuals will actually die in Original Sin only. So the teachings were important, because they showcase the necessity of the removal of Original Sin and of baptism for salvation.

I do not agree with the following belief…that these infants are judged upon the life they would have lived if they had been older. This disregards free will, nobody can be judged for anything that they have not done. They are judged in their current stage. Whether you are 6 months old, 9 years old, or 100, we are judged on the status of our souls at death, and what we have done with our own free will is the basis for this judgement, if we possess it. But some do not possess free will and reason at death. Ultimately, what decides if we go to Heaven or not is if our souls are in a state of sanctifying grace. It is not true that God only saves those who have chosen Him with their free will. Look at infants who are baptised and die shortly after. It was the desire of their parents or caretakers that brought them to the water font to be baptised, and at death they are in a state of grace, and enter into Heaven.

I believe the individuals we are speaking of, that do not possess true free will and reason, and were not baptised by water, are miraculously and supernaturally baptised by desire. I believe this is either because of their own desire (maybe supernaturally given infused free will to choose to reject or accept God, or maybe as a built-in desire for God that all humans have prior to possessing free will), because of the desire and prayers of the saints and angels, or because of the desire of Almighty God for them to be baptised and saved, because of His salvific will that all be saved He may supply the desire for them and supernaturally wipe away their Original Sin and place sanctifying grace in their souls prior to death.

 

[Fuerza]

If it is true that nobody dies in Original Sin only, which I do believe, the teaching of the Councils was not pointless. They taught the truth that any person with Original Sin on their soul at death cannot enter Heaven and would suffer loss of the beautic vision. This is pure truth, as is the necessity of baptism, the removal of Original Sin and receival of sanctifying grace in the soul. However, that teaching never claims that this in fact happens, only that if a person died in that manner they couldn’t enter Heaven. Notice the terminology used…it is not “For some this will happen, for others this will happen”, which implies certitude. Rather the language is “for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only” for the Council of Lyons II and “the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only” for the Council of Florence. It clarifies what would happen should someone die with Original Sin only, it never states whether or not individuals will actually die in Original Sin only. So the teachings were important, because they showcase the necessity of the removal of Original Sin and of baptism for salvation.

I do not agree with the following belief…that these infants are judged upon the life they would have lived if they had been older. This disregards free will, nobody can be judged for anything that they have not done. They are judged in their current stage. Whether you are 6 months old, 9 years old, or 100, we are judged on the status of our souls at death, and what we have done with our own free will is the basis for this judgement, if we possess it. But some do not possess free will and reason at death. Ultimately, what decides if we go to Heaven or not is if our souls are in a state of sanctifying grace. It is not true that God only saves those who have chosen Him with their free will. Look at infants who are baptised and die shortly after. It was the desire of their parents or caretakers that brought them to the water font to be baptised, and at death they are in a state of grace, and enter into Heaven.

I believe the individuals we are speaking of, that do not possess true free will and reason, and were not baptised by water, are miraculously and supernaturally baptised by desire. I believe this is either because of their own desire (maybe supernaturally given infused free will to choose to reject or accept God, or maybe as a built-in desire for God that all humans have prior to possessing free will), because of the desire and prayers of the saints and angels, or because of the desire of Almighty God for them to be baptised and saved, because of His salvific will that all be saved He may supply the desire for them and supernaturally wipe away their Original Sin and place sanctifying grace in their souls prior to death.

I’m actually on the other side here. I believe that automatically saving all infants negates free will. Even if the “what would have been” theory is rejected, I’m more inclined to believe that they are given a choice rather than just saved. That, however, is not something that can be solved in this lifetime.

Now, getting back to the councils, something still doesn’t sit right with me about your explanation. I just don’t buy that the Holy Spirit would guide the church to make infallible pronouncements about something that never happens. You say that these statements showcase the necessity of baptism, but your argument that no one dies in original sin makes baptism in any form unnecessary. On top of baptism itself being unnecessary, if God were simply going to remove everyone’s original sin anyway, even the knowledge that original sin needs to be cleansed in the first place would be unnecessary, thus making these conciliar statements twice as pointless. Why issue such strong warnings when there’s nothing to worry about? It would be like warning a cat that barking is a crime.

 

[FTS]

I’m actually on the other side here. I believe that automatically saving all infants negates free will. Even if the “what would have been” theory is rejected, I’m more inclined to believe that they are given a choice rather than just saved. That, however, is not something that can be solved in this lifetime.

Now, getting back to the councils, something still doesn’t sit right with me about your explanation. I just don’t buy that the Holy Spirit would guide the church to make infallible pronouncements about something that never happens. You say that these statements showcase the necessity of baptism, but your argument that no one dies in original sin makes baptism in any form unnecessary. On top of baptism itself being unnecessary, if God were simply going to remove everyone’s original sin anyway, even the knowledge that original sin needs to be cleansed in the first place would be unnecessary, thus making these conciliar statements twice as pointless. Why issue such strong warnings when there’s nothing to worry about? It would be like warning a cat that barking is a crime.

As I explained, it the theory of judgement of “how they would have been in the future” it impossible because it contradicts the truth of free will. All people are judged on the status of their souls at death. But dealing with the other idea you talked about, of the four possible theories I presented, the 1st one deals with exactly that, that God may supernaturally infuse for them real free will and reason and they make the choice to reject Him or accept Him. Personally, I find the 4th theory most plausible, where God directly intervenes and supplies the desire for them, removing their Original Sin and placing sanctifying grace in their souls immediately before death. Also, our salvation is not always dependant upon our free will and reason. If we possess it, yes this will determine our salvation, but ulitmately the status of our soul at death is what determines our salvation, and for those with reason our actions through our own free will determines the status of our soul. This is not so for those who do not possess free will at death. For example, look at babies who die days after they received water baptism. Certainly they didn’t choose to be baptised, their parents or caretakers had this desire. But because God is merciful and loving, He takes these children up in His arms and welcomes them into Heaven. Now for those who are not given water baptism, I believe God directly intervenes, supplying His desire for their salvation, from His salvific will for all people to be saved, and they are validly baptised by desire.

Now, regarding the statements from the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence. I am not being contradictory here, as you claim that I state baptism is necessary but in my words claim it is not needed. The removal of Original Sin and need for baptism MUST occur for a person to enter Heaven. This is what was taught at those councils and it is pure truth. They taught also that a person who died with Original Sin only and a person who died with mortal sin would have different punishments in Hell. Those who would die in Original Sin would suffer the loss of the beautic vision but not physical punishment, while those with mortal sin would suffer both. However, noting the language of the Councils, they never state that this ever indeed happens, rather they state what would occur if a person did die in that state.

For example, the Church reveals to us that the angels are in Heaven, as well as those people who are canonized saints. We know this to be true. However the Church has not and will not declare any person to be in Hell. Theoretically, a person could believe that not one person has ever died in state of mortal sin. I would disagree with them 100% as 99.9% of Catholics would, but it could be held. But as far as dying in Original Sin only, many people including myself do not believe this happens. I believe for these individuals God would supernaturally baptise them by desire immediately before their death. The Council affirmed what would happen if people died in mortal sin, and what would happen if people died in Original Sin only. Both would suffer in Hell, but with different punishments. They never claimed that people actually will die in Original Sin only, this has not been revealed to us. We are free to believe in Limbo, or to believe that these individuals enter into Heaven.

 

[FTS]

I’m actually on the other side here. I believe that automatically saving all infants negates free will. Even if the “what would have been” theory is rejected, I’m more inclined to believe that they are given a choice rather than just saved. That, however, is not something that can be solved in this lifetime.

Now, getting back to the councils, something still doesn’t sit right with me about your explanation. I just don’t buy that the Holy Spirit would guide the church to make infallible pronouncements about something that never happens. You say that these statements showcase the necessity of baptism, but your argument that no one dies in original sin makes baptism in any form unnecessary. On top of baptism itself being unnecessary, if God were simply going to remove everyone’s original sin anyway, even the knowledge that original sin needs to be cleansed in the first place would be unnecessary, thus making these conciliar statements twice as pointless. Why issue such strong warnings when there’s nothing to worry about? It would be like warning a cat that barking is a crime.

Continued from my last post…

Also, I am not saying nobody dies in Original Sin and mortal sin. Water baptism doesn’t guarantee you Heaven, because through your own free will you could commit unrepentant mortal sin. And if not baptised by water, I am NOT saying everyone is guaranteed to be baptised by desire. What I believe is that those who die before the age of reason (miscarried babies, aborted babies, children who die) and those who are incapable of true reason and free will (mentally retarded) are supernaturally baptised by desire by God Almighty.

Once a person is in the age of reason, it is their own free will that will determine whether or not they are baptised by water, blood, or desire, which is needed to be saved. A person who is invisibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church and is not baptised by water, but has lived a good life according to God’s moral precepts, seeking the truth and to do God’s will, and has perfect contrition for any mortal sins committed, has been validly baptised by desire and would die in a state of grace, and enter into Heaven. If a person was invisibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church but through their actions and free will did not do those needed things, or did them but did not “endure to the end” and committed unrepentant mortal sin and died in a state of mortal sin, they would not enter Heaven but rather would go to Hell. And of course, anyone who understood that the Catholic Church is the one true church and refused to enter into it would go to Hell.

In conclusion, I believe in the reality of Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation, and I do believe that individuals in the circumstance we are talking about (lacking reason and free will) would be supernaturally baptised by desire by the power of God and due to His great mercy and love, and His salvific will. We must remember that God established the sacraments, but He is not bound by them. Water Baptism is not the only form of baptism, Baptism by Blood or Desire are supernatural means, but they are just as valid as the natural means of Water Baptism. God is not restricted or bound by the sacraments, He can impart His grace to people through supernatural means. Limbo can be believed by faithful Catholics, as was believed by many Catholic popes and theologians in the past, but is NOT infallible teaching, it is theological speculation. Faithful Catholics can also agree with myself, the ITC theologians, Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and many other faithful Catholics, in believing that these individuals go to Heaven. This is distinction must be made, and it is vitally important for Catholics to realize this.

 

[gorman64]

FTS:

For example, look at babies who die days after they received water baptism. Certainly they didn’t choose to be baptised, their parents or caretakers had this desire. But because God is merciful and loving, He takes these children up in His arms and welcomes them into Heaven.

Dear FTS,

The above is false. The desire of the parents has nothing to do with the effects and character imprinted by water baptism on an infant. If you insist on repeating this erroneous idea then please state your source for it. Who teaches this? Where did you learn this?

“…We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent; and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent…The punishment of original sin is the depravation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell…” (See Denz.410, Pope Innocent III)

This ground has been tilled already…so I’m not interested in arguing with your own personal opinions here. [Edited by Moderator]

Yours,

Gorman

 

[FTS]

Dear FTS,

The above is false. The desire of the parents has nothing to do with the effects and character imprinted by water baptism on an infant. If you insist on repeating this erroneous idea then please state your source for it. Who teaches this? Where did you learn this?

This ground has been tilled already…so I’m not interested in arguing with your own personal opinions here. [Edited by Moderator]

Yours,

Gorman

I’m not talking about the desire of the parents, I am talking about the desire of Almighty God. Go back to my previous posts and read those 4 possible theories, showing how these individuals could be validly baptised by desire. I personally find the 4th most plausible, but all are acceptable beliefs for faithful Catholics to hold. Here is that 4th theory again…

In essence, to be baptised is to have your Original Sin removed and be given sanctifying grace in the soul, the dwelling of the Holy Trinity within you. When we baptise babies with water, it is the desire of the parent or caretaker for this child that leads to their baptism. There is belief that God could supernaturally supply baptism for the person, a form of baptism by desire. The desire for their baptism and salvation comes from God, and He supernaturally removes their Original Sin, placing sanctifying grace in their souls before death. This correlates with God’s salvific will, the fact that He wills all to be saved and is not restricted and bound by the Sacrament of Water Baptism. He can use extraordinary means to impart His grace to others.

And you asked where I got these theories, so I will tell you. I got them from reading materials and articles from Catholic priests, apologists, theologians, as well as from reading the recent ITC document on this topic that Pope Benedict XVI endorsed and validated. YOU are the one who is spreading error, when you pretend that Limbo is infallible Catholic teaching. I’ve said it many times, I’ll keep on saying it…Limbo is NOT infallible teaching, it is theological speculation on a matter that God has not revealed to us. Faithful Catholics may believe that these individuals go to Limbo, and they also are free to believe that they enter into Heaven. THIS IS THE POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

I am not condemning you for your belief in Limbo, while I do disagree strongly with it. I recognize your freedom to believe in it. Wake up and separate the facts from the fiction, and understand that faithful Catholics may also believe that these individuals go to Heaven, just as Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and many others believe. I found it amusing that you feel you are “more Catholic than the Pope”, and a better theologian than those on the ITC who created the recent document showing the Church’s movement in the direction towards rejecting Limbo and leaning towards belief that these infants go to Heaven.

[Edited by Moderator] I stated my sources, and showed the truth of the matter, that Catholics are allowed to have difference of opinion here. [Edited by Moderator]

 

[system]

limbo is not or ever has been the teaching of he church,it was put forward as theory.by St.Aug. refer to the c.c.c.
blessings

 

[Fuerza]

limbo is not or ever has been the teaching of he church,it was put forward as theory.by St.Aug. refer to the c.c.c.
blessings

The Councils of Florence and Lyons II specifically mention a certain punishment in Hell for those who die in original sin only. This is what most mean when they say Limbo. The word itself may not be in the text, but the concept is. There is a lot of speculation as to what this punishment is, and we will likely never know in this life, but most limboists are in agreement that it involves little or no pain and may even allow a degree of happiness.

 

[gorman64]

FTS:

You told me to “State your sources or be silent…you are spreading error on a public forum.” Mighty big words. Mighty false words, too. I stated my sources, and showed the truth of the matter, that Catholics are allowed to have difference of opinion here.

I got them from reading materials and articles from Catholic priests, apologists, theologians, as well as from reading the recent ITC document on this topic that Pope Benedict XVI endorsed and validated.

So, FTS, what are the sources? What do they say?

Your “four theories” are just that…your theories. They contradict established Church doctrine. [Edited by Moderator]

Gorman

 

[FTS]

The Councils of Florence and Lyons II specifically mention a certain punishment in Hell for those who die in original sin only. This is what most mean when they say Limbo. The word itself may not be in the text, but the concept is. There is a lot of speculation as to what this punishment is, and we will likely never know in this life, but most limboists are in agreement that it involves little or no pain and may even allow a degree of happiness.

But keep in mind neither Council taught with certainty that people actually do die in Original Sin only, rather they taught what would happen if this did occur, showcasing the necessity for the removal of Original Sin via Baptism to enter into Heaven. Faithful Catholics are free to believe that nobody in fact does die in Original Sin only, and that these individuals are miraculously baptised by desire and enter into Heaven. Likewise Catholics are free to believe these individuals go to Limbo and aren’t baptised. There simply is no revealed teaching from God on this subject. But keep in mind that Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, as well as the ITC theologians all hold belief that these individuals receive salvation and enter into Heaven due to God’s great mercy and love, and His salvific will for all people.

 

[FTS]

So, FTS, what are the sources? What do they say?

Your “four theories” are just that…your theories. They contradict established Church doctrine. [Edited by Moderator]

Gorman

Yes, of course the four possible theories I have talked about are…theories. That is why I called them the four theories and not the four guaranteed truths. I realize they are theological speculation. But Gorman, guess what else is theological speculation? Belief in Limbo. There is no revealed truth on the matter, we are free to have differing opinions here.

None of those theories contradict established Church doctrine. Limbo is NOT infallible teaching. The theories recognize the truth of Original Sin and necessity of baptism for salvation, while they also recognize that God is not bound by the Sacraments, that He can choose to impart grace others, and that baptism by blood or desire are supernatural means, but just as valid as baptism by water. They are fully in line with acceptable theological speculation on the matter. Also, it is true that Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and the ITC theologians personally tend to reject Limbo and believe that these individuals enter into Heaven. Many previous Popes and theologians personally believed in Limbo, as you do. Don’t you see that faithful Catholics can disagree here? It is not hard to understand.

Onto my sources. I will gladly reveal and talk about them. I could probably find MANY more, but for now I will talk about 5 different sources. I’ll provide the links and I highly suggest you read them. Okay…

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

This is an article from none other than Karl Keating, the head of Catholic Answers. He mentions the possibility of the 1st Theory, in which these individuals could be baptised by desire because they God would supernaturally infuse reason and free will to them, in which they could choose to reject or accept Him.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

This is an article from Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin. In the article he mentions that actually for centuries, (but obviously especially in more recent times) Catholic theologians have been speculating that these individuals could be baptised by blood or by desire. I also know that Mother Angelica holds the belief that aborted babies are baptised by blood. Personally, I think that miscarred babies, aborted babies, persons under the age of reason who die from murder, accidents, sickness, and those who are incapable of true free will and reason, such as the mentally retarded and handicapped, all would be supernaturally baptised by desire via one of the four theories I have mentioned.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-07/graebe.html

This is an article from Brian A. Graebe, a college student who is pursuing a degree in Philosophy. He talks about the 1st and 2nd theories as possibilities.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=63609

This is an article from Father Peter Gumpel, who is a Church theologian and historian. He also talks about the 1st and 2nd theories as possibilities.

 

[FTS]

Onto my sources. I will gladly reveal and talk about them. I could probably find MANY more, but for now I will talk about 5 different sources. I’ll provide the links and I highly suggest you read them. Okay…

Continued…

It is very important for people to note that just as Original Sin is not contracted by consent, it can be wiped away by God’s gift of grace without consent as well. I think understanding that knowledge is very helpful to this discussion. Okay, so here is my final and most important souce. It is the actual ITC document recently released, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI. I highly suggest reading it, and I found it an interesting and excellent read. It mentions the possibility for all four of the theories I have talked about. If anyone is interested and hasn’t read these four theories, just look back a few posts and you will find them explained (post #158 to be exact).

These excerpts reflect the 1st theory…

“94. Baptism for salvation can be received either in re or in voto. It is traditionally understood that the implicit choice for Christ that adults who are not actually baptized can make constitutes a votum for baptism and is salvific. In the traditional view such an option is not open to infants who have not attained the use of free will. The supposed impossibility of baptism in voto for infants is central to the whole question.”

“Hence, many, many attempts have been made in modern times to explore the possibility of a votum in the case of an unbaptized infant, either a votum exercised on behalf of the infant by its parents or by the church,126 or perhaps a votum exercised by the infant in some way.127”

“The church has never ruled out such a solution, and attempts to get Vatican II to do so significantly failed because of a widespread sense that investigation of this matter was still ongoing and a widespread desire to entrust such infants to the mercy of God.”

These excerpts reflect the 2nd theory…

“On the other hand, baptism is administered to infants, who are free from personal sins, not only in order to free them from original sin but also to insert them into the communion of salvation which is the church, by means of communion in the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 6:1-7). Grace is totally free, because it is always a pure gift of God.”

“Damnation, however, is deserved, because it is the consequence of free human choice.10 The infant who dies with baptism is saved by the grace of Christ and through the intercession of the church even without his or her cooperation. It can be asked whether the infant who dies without baptism but for whom the church in its prayer expresses the desire for salvation can be deprived of the vision of God even without his or her cooperation.”

1. “When an infant is baptized, he or she cannot personally make a profession of faith. Rather, at that moment the parents and the church as a whole provide a context of faith for the sacramental action. Indeed, St. Augustine teaches that it is the church that presents a child for baptism.132 The church professes her faith and intercedes powerfully for the infant, supplying the act of faith that the infant is unable to make; again the bonds of communion, both natural and supernatural, are operative and manifest.”

“If an unbaptized infant is incapable of a votum baptismi, then by the same bonds of communion the church might be able to intercede for the infant and express a votum baptismi on his or her behalf that is effective before God. Moreover, the church effectively does express in her liturgy just such a votum by the very charity toward all that is renewed in her in every celebration of the Eucharist.”

This excerpt reflects the 3rd theory…

“During the 20th century, some theologians, developing certain more ancient theological theses, proposed to recognize for little children either some kind of baptism of blood (by taking into consideration the suffering and death of these infants) or some kind of baptism of desire (by invoking an “unconscious desire” for baptism in these infants oriented toward justification or the desire of the church).58”

This excerpt reflects the 4th theory…

“87. c) It is also possible that God simply acts to give the gift of salvation to unbaptized infants by analogy with the gift of salvation given sacramentally to baptized infants.118 We may perhaps compare this to God’s unmerited gift to Mary at her immaculate conception, by which he simply acted to give her in advance the grace of salvation in Christ.”

 

[FTS]

Continued…

Here are some more great excerpts from the ITC document to ponder…

“81. a) God’s grace reaches all people and his providence embraces all. The Second Vatican Council teaches that God does not deny “the assistance necessary for salvation” to those who, without any fault of their own, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who with the help of grace “strive to lead a good life.”

“God enlightens all people “that they may at length have life” (cf. Lumen Gentium, 16). Again it teaches that grace is “active invisibly” in the hearts of all people of good will (Gaudium et Spes, 22). These words apply directly to those above the age of reason, who are making responsible decisions, but it is difficult to deny their applicability also to those below the age of reason.”

“While the necessity of baptism is de fide, the tradition and the documents of the magisterium which have reaffirmed this necessity need to be interpreted. While it is true that the universal salvific will of God is not opposed to the necessity of baptism, it is also true that infants, for their part, do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive grace.”

“So, while knowing that the normal way to achieve salvation in Christ is by baptism in re, the church hopes that there may be other ways to achieve the same end. Because by his incarnation the Son of God “in a certain way united himself” with every human being and because Christ died for all and all are in fact “called to one and the same destiny, which is divine,” the church believes that “the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et Spes, 22).9”

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).”

1. “What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.135 Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.”

I highly reccommend anbody who is highly interested in this topic to read the entire document, it is a wonderful document with many insightful arguments. Here is a link…

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=7529

 

[Grace_Angel]

If Limbo were true, it is on the fringe of Hell, and those who go to Limbo are damned to Hell, but do not suffer physical suffering, only the loss of beautic vision. Christ Jesus opened the gates to Heaven, and those who go to Heaven are saved by His Passion, Death, and Resurrection. To go to Limbo is not to be saved, but rather to be damned. albeit the lightest punishment in Hell. Therefore those in Hell are not merited by the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Again, the idea of Limbo would not be one of salvation, but one of damnation. Salvation is not merely the lack of suffering physical torment in Hell, salvation is entering into Heaven to be with God forever. Therefore, those who believe in Limbo are indeed saying that these individuals do not benefit from the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They do not receive salvation, but rather damnation and punishment.

According to Limbo-believers, those who die in a state of mortal sin are punished and damned to Hell to suffer physical pain as well as the pain of the absence of God, and those who die with the stain of Original Sin are punished and damned to Limbo, which resides in Hell, suffering only the loss of the beautic vision. If you are being punished in the afterlife, you have not received salvation. Both the Council of Lyons II and Florence teach that those who die with Original Sin only and those who die in Mortal Sin both are punished and descend to Hell, but to receive differing punishments. This teaching is of course hypothetical in nature, stating this is the case if anyone dies with Original Sin only, which wasn’t explicitly revealed, just the result that would occur if this happened. Notice the terminology used…it is not “For some this will happen, for others this will happen”, which implies certitude. Rather the language is “for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only” for the Council of Lyons II and “the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only” for the Council of Florence. It clarifies what would happen should someone die with Original Sin only, it never states whether or not individuals will actually die in Original Sin only. But for someone believing in Limbo, accordingly you must believe those there are in Hell, and are suffering punishment, albeit not physical, and have not received salvation but rather damnation.

I do not agree with Limbo. While I realize that anyone who would die with the stain of Original Sin would not be able to enter into Heaven and would suffer the loss of beautic vision in Hell, as taught at councils previously, I do not believe anyone actually does die in the state of Original Sin only, because I believe these individuals are miraculously baptised by desire and enter into Heaven. Again, while a faithful Catholic may believe in Limbo, a faithful Catholic may also believe these individuals go to Heaven, as I do, and as Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, the ITC theologians, and many other Catholics believe. It is time to separate the facts from the fiction. Limbo is NOT infallible doctrine, and it never was. On the contrary, Limbo is theological speculation. A faithful Catholic may believe in it, but a faithful Catholic is also free to believe that these individuals enter into God’s Heavenly Kingdom.

Thank you to FTS for this answer. I have been unwell this week and also my computer is giving me grief. I have not responded to posts because I am unable to enter into the posts and read them
so until my computer repairer fits me in I am unable to espond. So If I should have responded to someone please forgive me.
FTS you took the words I hoped to say and you said them better. Thank you. I have three children “living with the Lord” and not in Limbo or the edge of anything and I hope to hold and see my children one day.
God Bless
Grace Angel.

 

[FTS]

Thank you to FTS for this answer. I have been unwell this week and also my computer is giving me grief. I have not responded to posts because I am unable to enter into the posts and read them
so until my computer repairer fits me in I am unable to espond. So If I should have responded to someone please forgive me.
FTS you took the words I hoped to say and you said them better. Thank you. I have three children “living with the Lord” and not in Limbo or the edge of anything and I hope to hold and see my children one day.
God Bless
Grace Angel.

You are very welcome, and thank you for your kind words. Some Catholics mistakenly believe Limbo is required belief, when that is entirely inaccurate. We can believe in it, but it is just as acceptable to belief that these individuals enter into God’s Heavenly Kingdom, in agreement with Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, many Catholic theologians, and many Catholic lay people. I do believe very strongly in my personal opinion that these individuals are miraculously and supernaturally baptised by desire, and that God in His infinite mercy and love welcomes them into Heaven with open arms. I have no doubt in my mind that your three blessed children are in perfect bliss and happiness, “living in the Lord” right now with the Almighty God who loves them so very much. I bet they cannot wait until the day their mommy can greet them in Heaven and hold them close. God Bless you and your family!