Limbo as Dogma?

[palmas85]

palmas85;3112818:

Absolutely! And I believe that these infants are concieved with the stain. However, I hold out hope that God can offer an extraordinary way of baptism for them. This is my opinion of course.

Which points am I picking and choosing? There have been a few points that I have made, which you have not addressed as well.
Such as the ITC document and the CCC quotes

I read the ITC document. Thats all it is, a document. It has no weight whatsoever and speaks with no authority at all. The CCC says we can hope for the mercy of God. Thats it.What is there to address in those two things? The ITC document in reality means absolutely nothing and the catechism says that we can hope.

Quite true, it is your opinion and nothing more,

The cold hard fact remains that the unbaptized of whatever persuasion, whatever age, whatever circumstances all bear the stain of original sin, **which as far as we know can only be removed through baptism. ** Thats it.

As far as we know. Anything else is rank speculation and attempts on our part to imply that our own personal sense of morality reigns supreme.

 

[surgei]

marci;3112889:

The cold hard fact remains that the unbaptized of whatever persuasion, whatever age, whatever circumstances all bear the stain of original sin, **which as far as we know can only be removed through baptism. **

Thats it.

As far as we know. Anything else is rank speculation and attempts on our part to imply that our own personal sense of morality reigns supreme.

It is just this doctrine that is being looked at is it not. The doctrine of original sin. The idea that God created man as good before the fall, and not only not good after the fall, but evil and destined to hell. The conjecture that God who is infinate in love would make a creature to torture for all time. The verses that are used to justify limbo as far as “God’s ways” are the same verses used by the heretic Calvin in justification of his predestination doctrine. They are as far out of context there as they are in this discussion.
Catholics in a lot of ways are coming back to the view of God as the “Father from whom every father gets the name”. It is a shame you do not use the term more in your Liturgy. As we pray so we believe. Perhaps it is the more accessible use in the NO that is bringing the Church back to right reason. Maximos IV was right.

 

[marci]

Thats it.What is there to address in those two things? The ITC document in reality means absolutely nothing and the catechism says that we can hope.

 

[palmas85]

That’s not it. As evidenced on these forums we go from “hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision” to infants are in Limbo, enjoying perfect happiness, to all who die without baptism go to Hell, or rather some place in Hell which isn’t as bad as the rest of Hell. For you personally it may be a non issue, but for countless other faithful it is a heart wrenching issue.

 

[marci]

If the whole thing boils down to offering comfort to the parents, which it truly seems to be more than anything else,

This is not my feeling at all.

That is if you accept the Catholic position on Original Sin.
If you don’t, then you are free to believe whatever you want.

I believe I have made that clear.

As far as hope, I have said before, we can always hope. But that really doesn’t make things any different than they are.

CCC on Hope

1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.” “The Holy Spirit…he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hop of eternal life.”

1818 The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration to happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men’s activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Buoyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and let to the happiness that flows from charity.

1819 Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hop a Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was purified by the test of the sacrifice. ** “Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations.”**

In the end, what do any of us have other than hope? All have fallen short, and it is only through God’s Mercy that any of us are saved. So, I respectfully agree to disagree.
It was an interesting discussion though.

Have a Blessed Christmas!

 

[stringbeanduck]

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree. I think that adherence to and fidelity to what the Church actually teaches is more important than making someone feel good. We have absolutely nothing concrete that even hints that the unbaptized will be saved. We have opinions and theories, nothing more.

I believe they will make it to heaven

I agree there are many views. I do believe that the babies will be saved somehow. I don’t believe God would keep them from Him. One thought I have is If they might go to purgatory to have the original sin washed away then again I could be wrong. Read this. This was when the pope revised the teachings. Forgive me if this has been brought up already.

Anyways yes this was a interesting discussion

The theologians’ finding is that God wishes all souls to be saved, and that the souls of unbaptised children are entrusted to a “merciful God” whose ways of ensuring salvation cannot be known. “In effect, this means that all children who die go to Heaven” one source said.

religionnewsblog.com/16159/pope-to-end-doctrine-of-limbo

 

[Walking_Home]

I believe they will make it to heaven

I agree there are many views. I do believe that the babies will be saved somehow. I don’t believe God would keep them from Him. One thought I have is If they might go to purgatory to have the original sin washed away then again I could be wrong. Read this. This was when the pope revised the teachings. Forgive me if this has been brought up already.

Anyways yes this was a interesting discussion

religionnewsblog.com/16159/pope-to-end-doctrine-of-limbo

---

Sorry to burst your bubble–but the info you provide is NOT the Pope revising anything.

 

[surgei]

The worship of God and the practice of religion is far more than the offering of solace and comfort to someone who may or may not be in a suffering state. It is truly laudable to do so, but it is not the primary purpose of religion and never has been.

This has a couple errors in it. First we cannot question that those who lost children without baptism suffer. Second the worship of God requires acts of mercy. To console is to imitate God. This is what the primary purpose of religion the imitation of the divine in such a way that brings us closer to him.

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree. I think that adherence to and fidelity to what the Church actually teaches is more important than making someone feel good. We have absolutely nothing concrete that even hints that the unbaptized will be saved. We have opinions and theories, nothing more.

Is this not what we are discussing? What exactly does the church teach. By implication you are saying that those who hold a position counter to yours are not being faithful to the Church i.e. Christ. Consequently you condemn them to hell. Obviously the fathers of the ITC disagree with you. As do the Orthodox. Remember where the idea of limbo comes from in the context of the infants. It is not in the early Fathers. It is in the post scismatic western Church only.

That is if you accept the Catholic position on Original Sin.
If you don’t, then you are free to believe whatever you want.

Again this is part of what we are discussing here what does the Church teach on this mater in this case.

And now we come to the source of our problem. Accepting one particular saints teaching and those of his offspring, spiritual or corpral, as without error. This saint in particular was not a pope and is not even covered by that clause of Catholic teaching, as such just like other saints on other points he may be in error. The ITC in evaluating Limbo is in turn indirectly evaluating Augustine and Thomas both. This is very hard for them to do I am sure.
Do not stand often or imobile in contradiction to bishops, lest before God you also stand in contradiction.

[/QUOTE]

 

[SemperFidelis]

Don’t resort to quips when you get pinged.

I wouldn’t expect someone who is Orthodox to stand up for the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception, but I would expect someone who describes himself as Catholic to. No quipping here, and I would hardly call post # 188 on this thread “getting pinged,” but thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Look at your own links again. In that they were aproved by the pope your conclusion that this ITC teaching is not teaching for the Church falls again.

Just because a Pope approves what is being said by the ITC still does not make the Church teaching official, or provide any authority related to those teachings. It is what he does with the declarations made by the commission. So far he hasn’t done anything, so it means jack squat. Walking Home and palmas85’s thoughts about the ITC are right on.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The document said that Limbo seemed to reflect an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

Yes and it also said this:

“the theory of Limbo definitely remains a possible theological opinion.”

How is undeclared dogma, and theological speculation “taught” in the church?

The same way it’s been taught by numerous Popes and Doctors of the Church. Read back a few pages and read some of the quotes by Popes Innocent III, Pius VI, Pius XII, Sixtus V, and John XXII, as well as several Doctors of the Church and several Catechisms, including the first edition of the new CCC.

 

[Greg72]

Read the article please.

I did, and while the history is fascinating (I didn’t know that it was thought of as an alternative to hell rather than heaven for instance) I still think that “taught” is too strong a word to use.

The theory of Limbo was certainly accepted by many people and the comments of past Popes would make it more awkward to get rid of, but there’s no reason why the Pope couldn’t put it to rest tomorrow.

To me, the Church is constantly moving toward a fuller understanding of God. This is as it should be, and admitting human error shouldn’t be a problem in this process.

I’ve heard that at least one famous theologian (Hans Urs von Balthasar) has suggested that hell may not contain a single human soul. I can just imagine how difficult an idea this is for those unable to let go of the idea of Limbo.

So let’s fear hellfire and make sure that we avoid being in a state of mortal sin and let’s make sure we baptise our children shortly after they are born - but let us also trust in God’s mercy and realize that He isn’t limited by anything apart from our unwillingness to cooperate with Him (which is a gift to us beyond our comprehension).

If unbaptized children go to heaven, it doesn’t make baptism any less valuable and it doesn’t make abortion any more acceptable.

I honestly don’t understand why so many people seem so attached to the idea of Limbo when the current Holy Father doubts its existence. He doesn’t strike me as a man who says things just to make people more comfortable.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I believe they will make it to heaven

I agree there are many views. I do believe that the babies will be saved somehow. I don’t believe God would keep them from Him. One thought I have is If they might go to purgatory to have the original sin washed away then again I could be wrong. Read this. This was when the pope revised the teachings. Forgive me if this has been brought up already.

Anyways yes this was a interesting discussion

What’s the point of original sin then if God is just going to remove it from everybody? This type of thinking leads one on the path to universal salvation. There are countless Saints who have taught there is only a few who will be saved. It is pure arrogance to believe one knows more than the greatest of the Saints and Doctors of the Church regarding this matter.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I did, and while the history is fascinating (I didn’t know that it was thought of as an alternative to hell rather than heaven for instance) I still think that “taught” is too strong a word to use.

Fair enough.

I’ve heard that at least one famous theologian (Hans Urs von Balthasar) has suggested that hell may not contain a single human soul. I can just imagine how difficult an idea this is for those unable to let go of the idea of Limbo.

The idea of Universal Salvation has been denied by more Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, etc. then I care to count. Hans Urs von Balthasar and his theories have absolutely no authority and no backing by the Church. They are blatantly wrong at best and heresy at worst. St. Matthew says it best:

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” - St Matthew 7:13-14

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why is it impossible for some to fathom that a Baptism of Desire can extend to those mentally deficient or in infancy?

I’m not saying it does extend to all of those people–but I can’t understand the mindset that it would be too great of a thing for God to do for any particular one of them.

Is God that small?

Is cherishing the binding power of original sin to Hell a pre-requisite to real traditionalism?

Does it make people that profess such a traditionalism joyful and praise God that in His Infinite wisdom that He will let such people not enjoy His presence in Heaven because of the magnificence of His boundless Impotency against the power of original sin?

The God I wosrhsip isn’t that small and isn’t that impotent.

Thanks be to God!

 

[SemperFidelis]

Why is it impossible for some to fathom that a Baptism of Desire can extend to those mentally deficient or in infancy?

I’ll go with Pope Pius XII here when referring to unbaptized infants and Baptism of Desire: (Post #72 in this very thread by the way):

“An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open…”

 

[SemperFidelis]

Is cherishing the binding power of original sin to Hell a pre-requisite to real traditionalism?

No, but it is a pre-requisite to Catholicism. Original Sin is a Dogma of the Church. Also, it is Dogma, as stated by an infallible Council of the Church, that Original Sin on the soul is damning.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Sorry to burst your bubble–but the info you provide is NOT the Pope revising anything

The quote was from the theologions. Not the pope himself. That was When the If the article was released. If the article had nothing to do with the pope revising the teaching try this. I know it was never an official teaching but I do know it has been talked about.

breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OKGGS80&show_article=1

Okay so 14pgs of what. Do we no anything concret about where unbaptized babies go?

BTW, Semper, do you listen to James Spann from ABC33/40? He’s pretty good met if you ask me. Just wondering.

 

[ttaylor]

Wow. Wow, is all I have to say.

Actually, no it’s not: your profile says you’re Catholic, try acting like it.

I am a Catholic, but that doesn’t mean I condone or agree with everything the Church does. I use my brain as well. To be dogmatic is to be ignorant, and there’s no need for that on earth.

 

[Walking_Home]

The quote was from the theologions. Not the pope himself. That was When the If the article was released. If the article had nothing to do with the pope revising the teaching try this. I know it was never an official teaching but I do know it has been talked about.

breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OKGGS80&show_article=1

Okay so 14pgs of what. Do we no anything concret about where unbaptized babies go?

BTW, Semper, do you listen to James Spann from ABC33/40? He’s pretty good met if you ask me. Just wondering.

Quote=stringbeanduck
One thought I have is If they might go to purgatory to have the original sin washed away then again I could be wrong. Read this. This was when the pope revised the teachings. Forgive me if this has been brought up already.

---

As you said – the quote is from the “theologians” Not from the Pope himself—so that nullifies your statement that the Pope revised the teachings— for he has done no such thing.

At 14 — you were not alive to know what was taught at least up into the 60’s --when Limbo was taught to me --along side all other Church teachings–just as it had been to taught to my parents, grandparents and to all who came before them.