Is there a Limbo?

[BibleReader]

allhers:

my goodness, you two like to argue much? its been days since i have been on here and i see you are still at it, anyway, i was just checking to see what others had posted, carry on.

We shouldn’t bury God’s theology in diplomacy. The theology, frequently received with hate, ultimately leads to peace. Diplomacy which ignores the theology, frequently received with peace, ultimately leads to hate.

 

[Roman_Army]

Bible Reader is right.

**1015 **“The flesh is the hinge of salvation” (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2: PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

**1017 **“We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess” (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a “spiritual body” (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

**2555 **Christ’s faithful “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (*Gal *5:24); they are led by the Spirit and follow his desires.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church

Because of the Original Sin our bodies have become corrupt. Baptism cleanses the original sin, but we are still subject to temporal punishment as the result of the original sin. However, the baptised are capable of holiness and salvation. The resurection is in an improved body that does not contradict the spirit. Jesus was free of Original Sin, but had to go through the suffering and death because of the original sin that deprived us of immortality. Had humanity remained in the Garden of Eden, it would’ve been immortal, but the world outside was mortal and so humanity became mortal.

 

[BibleReader]

allhers:

God made all things good, sin (rebelling, turning away from God, not listening to His Will), is why we have death :tiphat:

Actually, Scripture is not so clear about the innate goodness of humans minus the salvation process, if one fully appreciates the plaintext and sensus plenior or “fuller sense” meanings.

First, mankind, in Genesis 1, is portrayed as being created on Day “Six.” The Six Type = “evil.” Examples: Noah was 10 x 10 x 6 years old (“very very evil”) when the evil-punishing flood came. Genesis 7:6. Pharaoh pursued Moses with 10 x 10 x 6 “first class chariots” – “very very evil chariots” – Exodus 14:6-7. God has Joshua march around evil Jericho for “six” days – Joshua 6:3.

Second, in Genesis 2:7, God makes man out of aphar, the Hebrew word usually translated “dust” (but here translated “clay”) which comprises the Dust Type symbolizing “sin.” Example: Deuteronomy 9:21, where the Golden Calf was ground into “dust” and cast away.

Third, in Genesis 2:21-22, God makes Eve out of “sleeping stuff,” where the Sleep Type = “death,” “dead in sin,” or “sin.” Example: Romans 11:7-8.

Now that we see that three times in Genesis God is portrayed as making man out of “sin stuff,” go to Romans 8:7: “For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it…”

Do you deny Romans 8:7?

Now go to Day Six in the Genesis 1 creation account, Genesis 1:24-31.

Note that Genesis 1:31 DOESN’T specifically say that God looked at “man” and found him very good. Instead it says that God “looked at everything He made,” and found it very good.

This includes the Firmament, which is a Church Word Picture, created on the Day Two, the Two Type for “Church.” This includes the birds and the fish, created on Day Fire, the Five Type for Christ, because Christ is foreshadowed with a bird and a fish in the Old Testament.

In other words, mankind, supplied with the Church and Christ, is good.

Without these, “the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it…” Human flesh, without God’s grace, is not “innately good.” Instead, it is innately “depraved and wicked.”

THAT IS WHY UNBAPTIZED BABIES WHO DIE MAY NOT ENTER HEAVEN AND ACHIEVE ANY KIND OF BEATIFIC VISION. UNBAPTIZED HUMAN FLESH IS INCONSISTENT WITH GOD’S PERFECT JUSTICE. THAT IS WHY BAPTISM IS NOT JUST A QUAINT CUSTOM, BUT A NECESSARY SACRAMENT.

 

[BibleReader]

Thank you, Roman Army.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

(apologies for dropping in on this – but I have read the whole thread through several times.)

BibleReader,

It seems the point of contention is not merely with the “corruptible” body that we have but with your statement "human beings are totally depraved and wicked creatures"

This seems to be very similar to the Calvinist doctrine of “total depravity”. . .how do you explain *this *section of the Catechism:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". 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.

I am following your discussion with great interest! I hope that you can clear up your position in respect to paragraph 405 above.

Thank you!

 

[BibleReader]

Sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase…

405 Although it is proper to each individual,
Original Sin IS "proper to each individual. In other words, it is NOT the way it is normally portrayed – a deprivation of the gift of eternal life and of a perfect, pleasurable existence in Heaven, for 100 billion innocent persons because of the sin of 2 people, by a sovereign God who inconsistently tells us to be fair to all.

The sin in the Original Sin story is what goes on in me, and what would happen with every single moral decision but for grace. This is what Paul means when, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, he writes, “the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it…”

original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.
This is also true. Original Sin is a *state of alienation from God, built into human flesh. *Flesh, unassisted by grace, has ZERO potential to look for God. However, Original Sin is a state, not what we traditionally referred to as Actual Sin – sin by an act of the will. Therefore, personal FAULT does not attach due to Original Sin – but that state of alienation is still deeply repugnant – ultimately repugnant – to God. He won’t let us in Heaven, because of it, until the problem is cured by the grace won on the cross.

** It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".**
“[N]ot totally corrupted” simply means that it is subject to cure by grace. Thus, the next sentence…

** 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.
**Which means that we need a chronic love relationship/grace relationship with God in our life.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Biblereader,

We are made of sin-seeking garbage, and not more.

This can be explained in a orthodox way, but can also be interpreted in a heterodox manner.

My two cents on original sin, from my blog…
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/03/original-sin.html

**Original Sin **

I think that the Protestant view of the “fall” is much more destructive of human nature than the Catholic view. My understanding is that the Protestant view of the fallen nature is an intrinsically CHANGED human nature in the literal sense.

Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that the human nature remained the same, but the preternatural gifts and supernatural gifts were removed. In otherwords, Adam’s human nature was just like all of humanity (we inherited from him), except that his nature before the fall was supercharged with supernatural and preternatural catalysts (gifts) that intrinsically elevated his human nature. After the fall, the catalyst was removed. In this sense, human nature was intrinsically changed (due to the lack of divine catalysts). The nature is said to be damaged, but strictly speaking, it is the same nature as it was before, but without the supernatural catalyst (grace), it is a fallen nature (as opposed to a once elevated nature), it is a concupiscient nature, also called a sinful nature. Apart from a supernatural intervention from God, it is this fallen nature that all the descendents of Adam inherit naturally.

Catholicism teaches that this sinful nature can still desire the good, but it is rather unlikely without the gift of grace. This is in stark contrast to the Lutheran and Calvinist view of “total depravity.” Catholics would say depraved, yes, but not totally depraved. God creates every human nature. God only creates good. Without the help of supernatural gifts, our (good) natural gifts are at a disadvantage in dealing with the temptations of Satan. In otherwords, without grace our human selfishness is bound to result in personal sin.

The notion of original sin is simply the assertion that natural generation (simply being born) does not produce Original Justice (sanctification). One must be born again.

 

[allhers]

BibleReader:

, …

THAT IS WHY UNBAPTIZED BABIES WHO DIE MAY NOT ENTER HEAVEN AND ACHIEVE ANY KIND OF BEATIFIC VISION. UNBAPTIZED HUMAN FLESH IS INCONSISTENT WITH GOD’S PERFECT JUSTICE. THAT IS WHY BAPTISM IS NOT JUST A QUAINT CUSTOM, BUT A NECESSARY SACRAMENT.

I have never thought of Baptism as a “quaint custom”, I, for one know that it is indeed a Sacrament, I miscarried a baby once, and believe me, if I could have Baptized my child, I would have, however, he was already dead. Now, I take issue with anyone who dares to tell me that my baby may not be in heaven, as I have discussed this plenty with many who might know more than you do, over the years, and I have been assured that my child has been entrusted to the mercy of God, and that since I did desire Baptism for that child, more than likely he received a Baptism by desire. I have been told all about limbo also, and even I do not entirely discount it, although, I do believe that in the end, there will only be heaven or hell, and until then, we just don’t know anything for sure about some of these unbaptized babies. Thank You. I for one, choose to believe that my child is indeed with God, but I sure wouldn’t go around telling everyone that I know for sure where anyone is, unless the Church declares them a Saint.

 

[Edwin1961]

On Catholic Answers LIve tonight (7/12), Tim Staples was asked this question. I am sure you can listen to his answer either on the rebroadcast on EWTN OR in the radio archives.

 

[masterjedi747]

CCC Paragraph 405:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence. 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.

Original Sin
Catholicism teaches that the human nature remained the same, but the preternatural gifts and supernatural gifts were removed. In otherwords, Adam’s human nature was just like all of humanity, except that his nature before the fall was supercharged with supernatural and preternatural catalysts (gifts) that intrinsically elevated his human nature. After the fall, the catalyst was removed. In this sense, human nature was intrinsically changed (due to the lack of divine catalysts). The nature is said to be damaged, but strictly speaking, it is the same nature as it was before, but without the supernatural catalyst (grace), it is a fallen nature (as opposed to a once elevated nature), it is a concupiscient nature, also called a sinful nature.

Catholicism teaches that this sinful nature can still desire the good, but it is rather unlikely without the gift of grace. This is in stark contrast to the Lutheran and Calvinist view of “total depravity.” Catholics would say depraved, yes, but not totally depraved. God creates every human nature. God only creates good. Without the help of supernatural gifts, our (good) natural gifts are at a disadvantage in dealing with the temptations of Satan. In otherwords, without grace our human selfishness is bound to result in personal sin.

Verbum Caro and itsjustdave1988, thank you for posting those.
BibleReader, I think we agree on all of the major issues involved, but we’re just getting hung up on the minor details. Read these statements through (pulled from above texts), and tell me which parts (if any) you disagee with, so we can focus on those.

1. Human nature has not been totally corrupted, but rather wounded. We have a fallen nature (previously elevated nature), not an evil nature (nor previously a necessarily good nature).
2. We are subject to an inclination towards evil. Our sinful (fallen) nature can still desire the good, but it is rather unlikely (although not utterly impossible) without the gift of grace.
3. We cannot enter into Heaven until the wound of Original Sin is removed from our souls by the grace of Baptism, which was earned for us by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

BibleReader:

Original Sin is a state of alienation from God, built into human flesh.

You need to re-phrase this for me. “Built into the human flesh” sounds as if it is an imperfection that God intentionally put there, for the sole purpose of forcing us to require his salvation…which is, obviously, not the case.

BibleReader:

Flesh, unassisted by grace, has ZERO potential to look for God.

I’m not sure that I completely agree with this one, because again it seems like you’re going into the Protestant idea of “Total Depravity”…which is the entire reason we got hung up on potentially heretical ideas in the first place. Find that interpretation of Scripture for me somewhere in the Catechism, or from some other reliable source.

He won’t let us in Heaven, because of it, until the problem is cured by the grace won on the cross.

Absolutely. But why are you so certain that there is absolutely no hope for unbaptized (by water) infants? How do you know that there is not some other form of Baptism that God can offer to those souls?

"[N]
ot totally corrupted" simply means that it is subject to cure by grace.

I don’t think so. You’re skipping part of the phrase: “but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it”. There’s a good reason that colon was placed there in the sentence, instead of just ending with a period. “Not totally corrupted” means “wounded”. The next sentence is independent and stands by itself: Baptism heals that wound that the presence of Original Sin creates upon our soul.

Hopefully we can begin to make more progress on this discussion now that a few of these things have been cleared up. I apologize for any misunderstandings that I may have created.

 

[BibleReader]

masterjedi, I think that before I address your material I should be clear, again.

The concept that man will “do it” – get to Heaven or opt for Heaven – without God’s affirmative (name removed by moderator)ut is called Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

Outside of grace – let me repeat that: OUTSIDE OF GRACE – our alienation from God is PROFOUND. Flesh won’t do it.

Do you know who the prime tormentors of Hell are? It’s not demons. It’s THE DAMNED. They are what man is without grace. Without God’s grace, man is a self-seeking lunatic animal. Man is DISGUSTING. Our flesh says, “FEED me! SEX me! ENTERTAIN me! GIMME, GIMME, GIMME! Get outa my way! Screw you!” Hell is jammed with folks whose main achievement was “away-ness” from God and His Son’s grace. In Hell, they achieve that ambition, and get to live with the consequences forever! God gives them what they chose.

You have never experienced this in your life so far because grace has never NOT been available. The grace of the cross was always available to the past and to the future. It goes forwards and backwards in time, completing the otherwise incomplete creation called “mankind.”

Probably, really, really bad people approach the asymptope – gracelessness in this life. Someone like Ted Bundy, who gave himself over to the habit of strangling girls as he had sex with them so that he could experience making love to death, itself – seems pretty graceless and Hellish.

Now, how clearly does God’s inspired Word in Scripture, adopted by our Church as the inspired Biblical Canon and so made a part of its official Magisterial teaching, agree with this?

"For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it…" Romans 8:7.
Paul doesn’t hate flesh. He’s just saying that this is what flesh is without grace.

"For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other…" Galatians 5:17.
That’s pretty clear.

"Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin." Romans 7:25.
Ditto.

"The flesh is useless." John 6:63.
Whew! Could John have been any clearer?

"The LORD looks down from heaven upon the human race, To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one." Psalm 14:2-3; Psalm 53:3-4.
This is the same thing.

"There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one." Romans 3:10-18.
Here Paul paraphrases Psalm 14 and Psalm 53, and essentially implies that those Psalms are talking about “pre-grace mankind.”

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9.
That’s pretty clear.

Those verses are MAGISTERIAL TEACHING. You may not deny them.

 

[BibleReader]

**BibleReader: **Original Sin is a state of alienation from God, built into human flesh.

**masterjedi: **You need to re-phrase this for me. “Built into the human flesh” sounds as if it is an imperfection that God intentionally put there, for the sole purpose of forcing us to require his salvation…which is, obviously, not the case.

I think that your problem is that you view mankind as something essentially separate from God’s salvation process – that the salvation process was strictly a “Divine Afterthought” only devised by God only in response to the perverse sinfulness of these humans who “ruined it all” for themselves.

Instead, the salvation process was part of the total package intended by God all along, from before the time of our creation. It never wasn’t intended.

Without the salvation process, this is what we are, spiritually…

bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/pkopco/a335/rhetoric/images/antithesis-amputee.jpg

…we are spiritually incomplete, and the same disgusting human entities described in this Bible verses in the previous post by me.

WITH the salvation process, this is what we can be, spiritually, if we choose to accept God’s grace…

smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/05/12/muscle_man_200.jpg

 

[BibleReader]

**BibleReader: **Flesh, unassisted by grace, has ZERO potential to look for God.

**masterjedi: **I’m not sure that I completely agree with this one, because again it seems like you’re going into the Protestant idea of “Total Depravity”…which is the entire reason we got hung up on potentially heretical ideas in the first place. Find that interpretation of Scripture for me somewhere in the Catechism, or from some other reliable source.

Be a "Catholic, not an “anti-Protestant.” Just because a Protestant says something doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Next, why do you assume that the Magisterium’s own clear statements in the Magisterium’s Bible are “crippled” and need interpreting whereas the Magisterium’s statements outside of the Bible AREN’T “crippled” and DON’T need interpreting?

Now, because you refuse to simply berlieve what your Magisterium teaches you in the Magisterium’s own Bible, here are OTHER words of the same Magisterium…

Second Council of Orange: “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20).

The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification my be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3).

Get it? We are DEPRAVED without grace.

 

[BibleReader]

**BibleReader: **He won’t let us in Heaven, because of it, until the problem is cured by the grace won on the cross.

**masterjedi: ***Absolutely. But why are you so certain that there is absolutely no hope for unbaptized (by water) infants? How do you know that there is not some other form of Baptism that God can offer to those souls?
*
I’m sorry, but what you are implying here is not a doctrine of our Faith. You seem to be suggesting that there is some kind of secret “baptism” NOT sacramental Baptism, NOT Baptism of Desire and NOT Baptism of Blood, which reduces sacramental Baptism to an unnecessary formality.

No such thing exists, as far as I know.

 

[BibleReader]

**BibleReader: **"[N]ot totally corrupted" simply means that it is subject to cure by grace.

**masterjedi: **I don’t think so. You’re skipping part of the phrase: “but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it”. There’s a good reason that colon was placed there in the sentence, instead of just ending with a period. “Not totally corrupted” means “wounded”. The next sentence is independent and stands by itself: Baptism heals that wound that the presence of Original Sin creates upon our soul.

Since you won’t believe the plain words of the Magisterium’s own Bible, I will repeat these OTHER words of the Magisterium…

**Second Council of Orange: “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20).

The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification my be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3).**

OUTSIDE OF GRACE, the corruption, the depravity, is TOTAL.

Grace, competent to the task, cures the problem.

Without the grace, there is no cure.

That idea has been condemned.

The name of the condemned doctrine here is “Pelagianism.” It is a form of paganism.

 

[cardenio]

Why do we discuss this? We don’t know, and we can’t know until the Church defines a doctrine. What we can do, on the other hand, is pray for God’s mercy.

 

[BibleReader]

cardenio:

Why do we discuss this? We don’t know, and we can’t know until the Church defines a doctrine. What we can do, on the other hand, is pray for God’s mercy.

The necessity of Baptism is defined. Therefore, unbaptized infants do not achieve a beatific vision.

I don’t care what one calls it, but in essence this is what is being referred to by the word “Limbo” in reference to unbaptized babies who pass away before achieving the age of reason.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

**BibleReader: **Since you won’t believe the plain words of the Magisterium’s own Bible, I will repeat these OTHER words of the Magisterium…

Second Council of Orange: "as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate" (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20).

The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification my be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3).

BibleReader,

I would caution you to approach these definitions in context. You can’t quote them and not clarify that they refer only to man’s inability without grace to accomplish supernatural good, or to do anything that is worth supernatural merit, or the acheive his supernatural end..

The teaching of the Church is that it it is possible for a man without grace to do a morally good action.

Look at this quote from Trent:
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God. . . let him be anathema.

And you cannot set up the Second Council of Orange (20) that you quoted above in opposition to this canon of the Council of Trent. Canon 20 of the Council of Orange must be properly understood to refer to good that merits supernatual life.

We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act. I think it is important to be clear on this point and to not overstate your position.

Thoughts?
VC

 

[BibleReader]

VERBUM CARO: We can, in our fallen nature, without grace, accomplish a morally good act. I think it is important to be clear on this point and to not overstate your position.

No, we can’t. You are wrong. And, you are squarely disagreeing with both the Magisterium’s Bible, and the Second Council of Orange, as well as the Church’s condemnation of the monk Pelagius.

The problem is the terms “morally good.” Man WILL NOT FORM A MORALLY GOOD INTENT WITHOUT THE IMPACT OF THE GRACE OF THE CROSS.

He might, for instance, perform what might be characterized as a “good” act accidentally – for instance, drive his car into the middle of a multi-billion dollar illegal drug transaction occurring in the middle of the street, thus accidentally averting the transaction, so that the illegal drugs are still available to be seized and destroyed by authorities when the wholesaler is arrested. But, in such a case, it’s not a “good” act per se – there was no good intent. It was an accident.

He might similarly accidentally form an intent to do something that appears morally good, but isn’t. For example, a politician decides to hug someone on TV to get votes, period.

But, I guarantee you that in every single case, in the history of the world, where there was morally good intent, God’s grace, accepted by the person with the intent, is an inevitable part of the process of forming the intent.

You must believe this, as a Catholic.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

BibleReader:

****You must believe this, as a Catholic.

BibleReader,
I assure you that I will attempt (with the help of God’s grace) to conform my mind and heart to this proposition, if, in fact it is as you say.

I’m just not sure, at this time, that you are accurately stating the teaching of the Church, or that I am properly understanding your statement. I will continue investigating it. Care to join me?

Thanks,
VC