LIMBO-A Serious Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter M_Oliver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

M_Oliver

Guest
If it only took me 2 years to discover…

And, he, is, a propitiation, concerning our sins,—and, not concerning our own only, but, also concerning those of the WHOLE world. (1 John 2:2 Rotherham)

For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL MEN{mankind}, especially of those that believe. These things command and teach.
(1 Timothy 4:10-11 KJVR)

Why in God our Father’s name did it take the catholic church 2000 years to figure this out??? You are the “authority” on Scripture are you not???

Can anyone honestly explain to me where DEAD INFANTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS?
 
Wow, you’re amazing! Two years for you against 2000 years for the Catholic Church…

You should be elected Pope! 👍
 
M_Oliver said:
Why in God our Father’s name did it take the catholic church 2000 years to figure this out??? You are the “authority” on Scripture are you not???

Can anyone honestly explain to me where DEAD INFANTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS?
Click to expand...
So are you acknowledging that the Catholic Church is 2000 years old, and not some dark ages invention, or at least that it is likely it was founded by Christ?

As for your question, your application of those verses as it would imply that every last person, without any effort of their own (including an act of faith) is saved. If that were the case, I’d forget all this religious stuff and go live a life of pure hedonism…but that’s just me.

BTW, please don’t invoke the name of God so lightly.
 
M_Oliver said:
If it only took me 2 years to discover…

And, he, is, a propitiation, concerning our sins,—and, not concerning our own only, but, also concerning those of the WHOLE world. (1 John 2:2 Rotherham)

For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL MEN{mankind}, especially of those that believe. These things command and teach.
(1 Timothy 4:10-11 KJVR)

Why in God our Father’s name did it take the catholic church 2000 years to figure this out??? You are the “authority” on Scripture are you not???

Can anyone honestly explain to me where DEAD INFANTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS?
Click to expand...
There are scriptures that speak of baptism as necessary for salvation. For example John 3:5. Baptism was considered by Tradition the sacrament which washes away original sin (as well as personal sins in the case of adults who are baptized). According to Jimmy Akin, there’s been “centuries” of speculation by theologians about unbaptized infants being saved or possibly being saved. So it’s not like it’s out of the blue.
 
40.png
M_Oliver:
Why in God our Father’s name did it take the catholic church 2000 years to figure this out??? You are the “authority” on Scripture are you not???

Can anyone honestly explain to me where DEAD INFANTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has always believed that one needs to be born again-- born of water and the Spirit-- to be saved (Cf. John 3:3, 3:5):
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.*
Catholics thus have the certainty of faith that Baptism is necessary for salvation, because God has revealed it. God *could *use other means to give a person the grace of salvation that He gives in Baptism, but since God has not revealed what those means are, the certainty of faith does not extend to those means.

In other words, for Catholics, there is certainty in Baptism, but only speculation – educated guesses – outside of Baptism.

So what happens to infants who die before Baptism? Catholics don’t have the certainty of faith that unbaptized infants are saved simply because God has not revealed it.

We could speculate, however.

One proposal is that unbaptized infants who die enter the perfect state of natural happiness-- Limbo. A more recent proposal is that these infants do indeed experience supernatural happiness-- Heaven.

Either way, we don’t have the certainty of faith here, because God has not revealed it.

The recent theological developments in the Catholic Church are the fruits of an exploration on just how it *may *be possible for deceased infants who are not baptized to enter or see the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Catholic Church affirms that,
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.
So while there is certainty that God desires that all men should be saved, there is also the certainty that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Based on the former, we could speculate that God would save unbaptized infants, too, but because He hasn’t revealed that, all we can do is entrust them to the mercy of God, and hope.
 
M_Oliver said:
Why in God our Father’s name did it take the catholic church 2000 years to figure this out??? You are the “authority” on Scripture are you not???
Click to expand...
Granted it’s already been addressed, I guess I should just point out that if this is your idea of a SERIOUS question, then I’d hate to see what lunacy you come up with when you’re being casual.
 
I think that the Church has already viewed these verses several times. In its 2000 year life, it SHOULD have seen them. But of course, as Christ said, “there is no salvation outside the Church”. And one becomes a member of the Church thru the sacrament of Baptism. For those outside of the Church, there is Baptism of the blood and baptism of desire. But in the end of course, God as an infinitely all-just being judges on whether who should be saved or not.
 
Yep, just as I suspected. Alot of blah, blah, blah with no substance. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves…
 
At the risk of further increasing your disillusion regarding all things Catholic, maybe you could enlighten us as to the fate of dead infants, since you seem to have The Answer.
 
M. Oliver, you say you have a serious question, you have received answers, yet your reply is to respond to us, ‘blah blah’ and name call. That is hardly the behavior of one who is seeking real answers or is willing to listen to anyone save himself, IMO.

It appears to me that you are refusing to listen to anyone or anything unless it conforms to what you have already made up your mind is the ‘correct answer’. If that isn’t the case, why the behavior in post 8? If somebody gave that response to you after you had ‘answered’ a question, you’d be yelling for the mods about ‘rude posts’–and you’d be within your right. It was rude. It comes perilously close to breaking forum rules.

A simple, “I went a little too far, guys, I guess I was hoping for some different answers. You shouldn’t be ‘ashamed of yourselves’, I should be ashamed for my poor behavior” would be a nice way of righting a wrong, and of continuing the dialogue should you truly be seeking ‘a serious answer’. . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top