Justice: a heaven and hell question

[YoungTradCath]

That people made up and is, again, NOT WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES

No, of course I’m not looking at some homily. The teaching of the Church is in the Catechism. Guess what? No limbo, nada - never - not once ever mentioned. Here is Church teaching, because you actually do not seem familiar with it:

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

The Roman Catholic Church does not, absolutely does not, teach there is any such place, state or destination for the unbaptized as “limbo.”

I would like to state that just because something is not in the Catechism does not mean it does not exist, nor does it mean that it is not Church teaching. On the other hand, I am not affirming that Limbo exists. The Church has never taught that Limbo exists. It was–and is–a theological hypothesis, which, throughout the years–usually proportionate to the sensibilities of society at any given time–was and is believed to be a plausible idea. I would also like to express that the Catechism itself is not infallible.

Is Limbo Church teaching? No
Does it exist? Maybe
Do we have to believe it? No

However, we MUST accept the following:

The Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Salvation means that you will go to Heaven.
There is only one other option: Hell.

However… it offends our sensibilities to say that unbaptized babies go to hell. We don’t like to think that. So, some theologians–very good ones I might say–came up with and endorsed the possibility of Limbo. Limbo, as it is conceived by us, is a “top level” of hell, where babies are treated to every possible natural comfort, yet do not experience the Beatific Vision of God because they are not in Heaven.

The quote from the Catechism in absolutely no way, shape or form contradicts the possibility that Limbo exists. It makes no judgement. It just says that we must consign the souls of unbaptized babies to God, just as we consign the souls of anyone to Him. This is basic. The Catechism does not say that unbaptized babies go to Heaven. Let me repeat: the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that the souls of unbaptized babies go to Heaven. This is not Church teaching, infallible or fallible. On the other hand, the Church does not teach that the souls of unbaptized babies to to Hell, either. In the same vein, the Church does not teach that the souls of unbaptized babies go to Limbo; indeed, Limbo is not a Church teaching at all. Plainly, the Church does not have a teaching that says where the souls of unbaptized babies go. It says something that appeals to the human heart: that we must entrust babies’ souls to God. And we surely do, just as we entrust everyone’s souls to God. But saying that we entrust babies’ souls to God does not mean that they go to Heaven. We would like to think that, yes. And it’s fine to do so. But we cannot definitively say so, at least not currently.

I would love if all souls of unbaptized babies go to Heaven. That is very sentimental to me and “seems fair” to my modern mind. However, we cannot, and I will not, say with definitive belief that the souls of unbaptized babies go to Heaven. Or Hell. Or Limbo, for that matter.

In sum, we cannot say where the souls of unbaptized babies go, for the Church does not teach this. We can only entrust their souls to God, as the Catechism states.

However, we can, until–if ever–this question is settled, make meaningful speculation. And Limbo is a very good speculation from a theological perspective, it seems. You don’t have to believe it. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t mean we can’t play with the idea. I don’t endorse it as Church teaching, for to do so would be absurd, but this has been a theological hypothesis for some time, and should be considered.

Do babies go to Heaven? Don’t know
Do babies go to Hell? Don’t know
Do babies go to Limbo? Don’t know

Can we say that Limbo exists? No
Can we say it doesn’t? It has never been condemned as heresy; in fact, it has garnered varying degrees of support from the Church over the years.
Do we have to believe it? Absolutely not!

 

[Julia_Mae]

I would like to state that just because something is not in the Catechism does not mean it does not exist, nor does it mean that it is not Church teaching.

Okay, I surrender, triple negatives are too much for me! But I’m pretty kinda sure I sort of agree. Maybe.

Do we have to believe it? Absolutely not!

Thing is, ITT, someone is stating it as fact. It is not fact, and not Church teaching. That’s all I’m saying. And I don’t think, in light of what the Church does say, we can believe it. Not as presented ITT. . The Church, kindly, often refrains from outright condemning things respected Church theologians of the past have suggested or endorsed. Instead, they clearly define the acceptable for Catholic position. And it ain’t limbo. (Unless you are at a party and then I think it depends on how you are dressed.)

 

[YoungTradCath]

Okay, I surrender, triple negatives are too much for me! But I’m pretty kinda sure I sort of agree. Maybe.

Thing is, ITT, someone is stating it as fact. It is not fact, and not Church teaching. That’s all I’m saying. And I don’t think, in light of what the Church does say, we can believe it. Not as presented ITT. . The Church, kindly, often refrains from outright condemning things respected Church theologians of the past have suggested or endorsed. Instead, they clearly define the acceptable for Catholic position. And it ain’t limbo. (Unless you are at a party and then I think it depends on how you are dressed.)

The Church does not define where the souls of unbaptized babies go after they die.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, this would have been the greatest way he could respond to each and every situation in his life. But how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loved himself, the ones who condemned him to death, the soldiers who crowned him with thorns and nailed him to the cross?

It seems that nothing, and no one should stand in the way of Jesus living by the greatest commandments, and we know that he prayed on the cross, ‘ forgive them Father’
It seems that every time Jesus suffered injustice here on Earth, he forgave, in order that he should continue to love the sinners as he loved himself. If Jesus can forgive the people who had him killed, then it should give us hope that we can be forgiven also. What kind of a burden do we place on Jesus with our sins?

 

[snarflemike]

The Church does not define where the souls of unbaptized babies go after they die.

Right, but some people seem to think they know anyway. Other people, me included, find Limbo an extremely contradictory concept given that God desires all to be saved, that the Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Innocents (none of whom were baptized), etc.

Your longer post was an excellent summary, BTW.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Right, but some people seem to think they know anyway. Other people, me included, find Limbo an extremely contradictory concept given that God desires all to be saved, that the Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Innocents (none of whom were baptized), etc.

I don’t think it is contradictory, but it does not seem the most plausible conclusion. I would tend to think God’s mercy works in extraordinary means for those innocents.** An aborted child would be the utmost shining example of ‘invincible ignorance’.**

 

[snarflemike]

I don’t think it is contradictory, but it does not seem the most plausible conclusion. I would tend to think God’s mercy works in extraordinary means for those innocents.** An aborted child would be the utmost shining example of ‘invincible ignorance’.**

Amen!

 

[Julia_Mae]

The Church does not define where the souls of unbaptized babies go after they die.

right

 

[teachccd]

…And the atheist was entertained…

 

[Julia_Mae]

…And the atheist was entertained…

Good, hope he’s paying attention. This thread belies all those assertions we are just sheep following anything anyone says all in religious lock-step.

I love Catholics, we’re a rowdy bunch!

 

[Poseidon]

Good, hope he’s paying attention. This thread belies all those assertions we are just sheep following anything anyone says all in religious lock-step.

I love Catholics, we’re a rowdy bunch!

I have been paying attention. And don’t worry, I’ve never thought that Catholics are all sheep. I was a Catholic for 20 years. I’d be stupid to say something like that.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have been paying attention. And don’t worry, I’ve never thought that Catholics are all sheep. I was a Catholic for 20 years. I’d be stupid to say something like that.

I do not want to seem argumentative at all - but - you wouldn’t be stupid if that’s all you experienced when you were in the Church: everyone agreeing and answering a question with “because the Church says so.” I see this was not your experience and I’m glad. But it’s a fairly common theme amongst atheists and I don’t think they are stupid, just not as well-informed as they might be.

 

[devoutchristian]

the Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Innocents (none of whom were baptized), etc.

Red herring, the Holy Innocents died before Christ’s death and resurrection.

 

[PRmerger]

Red herring, the Holy Innocents died before Christ’s death and resurrection.

Who declared that baptism is not required of those who died before Christ’s death and resurrection?

Is that Catholic teaching?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Thing is, ITT, someone is stating it as fact. It is not fact, and not Church teaching. That’s all I’m saying. And I don’t think, in light of what the Church does say, we can believe it. Not as presented ITT. . The Church, kindly, often refrains from outright condemning things respected Church theologians of the past have suggested or endorsed. Instead, they clearly define the acceptable for Catholic position. And it ain’t limbo. (Unless you are at a party and then I think it depends on how you are dressed.)

This is totally untrue. You are absolutely, 100% ALLOWED to believe in the Limbo.

Think about what you just said. Limbo as a teaching was never condemned. A new view has been endorsed. But if the past teaching has not been condemned we are absolutely still allowed to believe it.

Have you read the article by the Theological Commission? The conclusion it comes to is NOT that the current teaching of the Church is that unbaptized infants probably go to Heaven. Not even close.

All that it says is that such a belief is acceptable to hold, but we don’t really know. Since Limbo of the Infants was never condemned in any way, shape, or form we are of course still allowed to believe in it!

To summarize: All the article said was that we are unsure of the fate of unbaptized infants. And it pointed out, but never endorsed, that we are allowed to believe unbaptized infants go to Heaven. Limbo of the Infants as a theory is most certainly allowed.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The concept of an infant having invincible ignorance is an angle I’ve never heard before. It’s interesting.

This always goes back to this question, though: Why do we baptize infants then? It’s something I’ve always wondered, if we’re to believe unbaptized infants go to Heaven. I’ve never heard an answer before.

 

[PRmerger]

The concept of an infant having invincible ignorance is an angle I’ve never heard before. It’s interesting.

This always goes back to this question, though: Why do we baptize infants then? It’s something I’ve always wondered, if we’re to believe unbaptized infants go to Heaven. I’ve never heard an answer before.

We baptize infants because
-God has revealed that we must.
-It provides them with the grace necessary to stay the course.
-It transforms them from a creature of God to a child of God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We baptize infants because
-God has revealed that we must.

Of course. I’m wondering why.

-It provides them with the grace necessary to stay the course.

As infants? The age of reason is generally considered to be around 7, and I doubt you’ll need to worry up until about 2.

-It transforms them from a creature of God to a child of God.

But they are a child of God already, because when they die they go to Heaven (if we all agree that this theory is true).

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. I’m wondering why.

Because it inaugurates the new covenant.

As infants? The age of reason is generally considered to be around 7, and I doubt you’ll need to worry up until about 2.

What does reason have to do with it?

But they are a child of God already, because when they die they go to Heaven (if we all agree that this theory is true).

No one here ought to proclaim, “when they die they go to Heaven.” No one ought to proclaim that they are “a child of God already”.

What has been said is that we don’t know what happens to them if they are unbaptized, but, given that there are indeed unbaptized individuals in heaven, it’s POSSIBLE for unbaptized souls to get there.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Because it inaugurates the new covenant.

What does reason have to do with it?

No one here ought to proclaim, “when they die they go to Heaven.” No one ought to proclaim that they are “a child of God already”.

What has been said is that we don’t know what happens to them if they are unbaptized, but, given that there are indeed unbaptized individuals in heaven, it’s POSSIBLE for unbaptized souls to get there.

Okay, we’re getting mixed up here.

I’m starting this off with a premise: Let’s say that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. Of course, in real life we don’t know this, but we’re pretending we do for the sake of discussion.

Now you said:

1. “It inaugurates the New Covenant”-if you’re going to Heaven when you die anyway, why is this necessary?
2. Why do infants need grace to stay the course? They could just as easily be baptized any time at all before the age of reason.
3. And of course IF this theory is correct, as per the premise, they’re already “children of God” in the sense we mean.