Limbo as Dogma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SemperFidelis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
palmas85 said:
Well, at least two of them never sinned either, as I assume you are speaking of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and Elijah.
Click to expand...
I was not debating the idea of original sin or a will to sin as an impediment to enter heaven.

I was discussing the concept that only the soul goes to heaven. From your post I understood the implication that only the soul goes to heaven, thus dissociating itself from the body. My question was about that.

I was thinking of Mary, Elijah and possibly Enoch (even if it is not completely clear to me). That it was why I used the word “assumed”
 
Cristiano said:
I was not debating the idea of original sin or a will to sin as an impediment to enter heaven.

I was discussing the concept that only the soul goes to heaven. From your post I understood the implication that only the soul goes to heaven, thus dissociating itself from the body. My question was about that.

I was thinking of Mary, Elijah and possibly Enoch (even if it is not completely clear to me). That it was why I used the word “assumed”
Click to expand...
Well as you know Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from conception so she never had it to begin with… As to what transpired under the old covenant, as I understood it, things changed drastically after the birth of Christ. I may be wrong on that one, but that is what I was taught.
 
surgei said:
Two of those died.
Obviously one is Christ.
The other is the Mother of God. Look to the hymnography of the early church for that. Also it is implied in the Papal statement on the feast day.
Click to expand...
What in the world are you talking about?
 
palmas85 said:
What in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...
This is way off thread, but…
What you quoted of me was a comment I made about another poster who said that Christ, Mary and Elijah went into heaven body and soul. My comment was that two of the listed died. That Christ died is plain to see. That the Mother of God also died is not commonly conveyed well in many Roman Catholic writings of the subject, yet as we will see it is official teaching. The following is the justification of the assertion that she died, taken from Catholic tradition and dogmatic statements.

The early Church speaks not of the assumption but of the falling asleep in the Lord of the Theotokos. It is in conjunction with her death that we find of the taking of her body by her divine son. There are some great miricles associated with this point in early Christian history. One is that the apostles were brought to her by the angels that they might say farewell to their mother and the mother of the Church before her death. Another is of the wizard who came to disrupt the procession to the grave by attempting to throw her body to the ground had his head cut off and after his repentance reatatched by an angel (the icon of this hapens to be one of my favorites). Still another is the fact that Thomas was late again and wishing to venerate the body of the Most Blessed and ever to be rememberd Virgin asked that the tomb be open. Upon the opening of the tomb it was discovered that her body was not there but in its place rather was a great multitude of herbs and flowers.
Just so you know these are all part of Catholic teaching and preserved in the sayings of the fathers as well as the artwork of the Church. Tidbits of them are also found in the hymnography of the Church, especially that of the eastern charism of the Catholic faith. The Paraklesis that was prayed daily by several of the world war II martyred bishops references all of these things, although if one is unfamiliar with these stories the refferences are obscure.
Munificentissimus Deus (the bull that defines the Dogma of the Assumption for Roman Catholics) says the following:
Munificentissimus Deus:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Click to expand...
 
SemperFidelis said:
What troubles me is that Pope Benedict XVI, the ITC, the Catechism, and most everyone else seems to think that unbaptized infants go to heaven. This is so completely contradictory to the Councils. The way I see it, Limbo is not Dogma, but there are only two outcomes one can hold here, and heaven ain’t one of them, so basically denial of Limbo, means that hell is the only alternative. Saying unbaptized infants can go to heaven is almost a complete denial of original sin.
Click to expand...
I would trust one of the most brilliant theologians, one who is far more trained in what the Councils of the past have said or not said than I am, and who is far better trained in understanding the meaning owf what those Councils have said, than I would of my own reading; and particularly since that brilliant theologian just happens to be pope.
 
otjm said:
I would trust one of the most brilliant theologians, one who is far more trained in what the Councils of the past have said or not said than I am, and who is far better trained in understanding the meaning owf what those Councils have said, than I would of my own reading; and particularly since that brilliant theologian just happens to be pope.
Click to expand...
No thanks. I’ll stick with what the greatest theologian the world has ever known had to say on this subject (St. Thomas Aquinas). Interesting you’re quick to throw up this Pope’s opinions, but in so doing you throw away the opinions of several Popes. I’ll admit, Limbo isn’t Dogma, but getting rid of it leaves a gaping hole in Catholic theology. Fortunately Pope Benedict XVI has done no such thing. I’ve stated my case, and it correspondes with something like Fr. Brian Harrison’s:

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

He runs the Roman Theological Forum, is an Oblate of Wisdom, S.T.D., and is probably my favorite theologian of today. Other than that, I am done with this thread. Keep posting if you would like, but I am quite firm in my understanding of Limbo now.
 
SemperFidelis said:
No thanks. I’ll stick with what the greatest theologian the world has ever known had to say on this subject (St. Thomas Aquinas). Interesting you’re quick to throw up this Pope’s opinions, but in so doing you throw away the opinions of several Popes. I’ll admit, Limbo isn’t Dogma, but getting rid of it leaves a gaping hole in Catholic theology. Fortunately Pope Benedict XVI has done no such thing. I’ve stated my case, and it correspondes with something like Fr. Brian Harrison’s:

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

He runs the Roman Theological Forum, is an Oblate of Wisdom, S.T.D., and is probably my favorite theologian of today. Other than that, I am done with this thread. Keep posting if you would like, but I am quite firm in my understanding of Limbo now.
Click to expand...
Within the confines of Catholic teaching, you are welcome to believe that Limbo is the answer to the issue. You are also welcome to follow the current thought, and that is, we don’t have a specific answer. Factually, Limbo is not a defined doctrine within the Church. That does not mean that it does not exist. But it does mean that in regards to the Councils referred to within this thread, that they did not teach as definitively as some would have it. My point is that in trying to determine what a Council held definitively, we need to be guided by the Church and not simply rely on our own readings.
 
I’m going to throw something out there to see what you folks think on this. Be warned! You’re about to be smacked in the face with a personal opinion that is being thought of on the fly! 🙂

When we die, we hope for our salvation. We hope because we can only rely on Christ to save us, and Christ has left it up to us to truly ask for the help from him. Salvation only comes to those who truly make the turn towards Christ by accepting his grace, and damnation comes to those who do not turn towards Christ by rejecting his grace.

Many of us will die with sins that need to be purged from us in purgatory. It will be a form of suffering because we’re attached to the sin. God does not reveal himself to us now for our own safety, really. We would probably hate seeing him (before we dropped dead) because of our love of sin over God.

Is it possible that for unbaptized infants who die, some may experience their own turning toward or turning away from God upon their death? That is, that some souls of infants would be repulsed by God and some would not? Does the fact that their infant bodies mean that their souls cannot love or hate Infinite Beauty and Infinite Truth upon direct contact with it? Some babies are bad seeds from birth while others aren’t so bad. Perhaps this indicates states of their souls that would be more or less receptive to God.

Any thoughts?
 
The simple fact is tht none of us know what happens. All we can do is trust in God’s infinite mercy. He died for ALL mankind. Somehow in my mind I cannot see an infinitely loving and merciful God condemning these babies. But again, we don’t know. What we do is trust. I know that whatever he does is the right thing for all of us. This includes those babies. Thank you God for your love and mercy.
Deacon Ed B
 
I often hear people say they can’t “see a loving God” doing this or that. There are some here who have said they can’t “see a just God” NOT condemning the infants to hell since they have original sin.

One of the main points of my previous post was the idea that God is not condemning the souls of the infants. Those infants perhaps have a special opportunity to either love or hate the infinite beauty and truth that is presented to them. Simply because they’re infant bodies doesn’t mean their souls cannot love or hate what it sees before it. They have seen God before any of us.

Man condemns himself. God tries to save all, but has left it up to us to accept or reject it. I’m only speculating that the infants have that opportunity in a special way that no other human soul does. They journey is much more brief, but no less perilous. They aren’t innocent. Certainly some of them could hate God when seeing Him.
 
DRVSVS_VERAVIR said:
I often hear people say they can’t “see a loving God” doing this or that. There are some here who have said they can’t “see a just God” NOT condemning the infants to hell since they have original sin.

One of the main points of my previous post was the idea that God is not condemning the souls of the infants. Those infants perhaps have a special opportunity to either love or hate the infinite beauty and truth that is presented to them. Simply because they’re infant bodies doesn’t mean their souls cannot love or hate what it sees before it. They have seen God before any of us.

Man condemns himself. God tries to save all, but has left it up to us to accept or reject it. I’m only speculating that the infants have that opportunity in a special way that no other human soul does. They journey is much more brief, but no less perilous. They aren’t innocent. Certainly some of them could hate God when seeing Him.
Click to expand...
I fail to see where you get the idea that babies are not innocent; the Church holds that a child cannot commit a mortal sin until the age of reason; and that for sure is not at 6 months old.

As to their being given a choice, yes, that has been posited; somewhat along the lines of the angels having been given a choice. And yes, if that is the fact, then somehow they would be held accountable for that choice, and some could choose to reject God. However, it doesn’t balance well with the lack of age of reason.
 
Haven’t you heard of original sin? 😉 That is what makes it such a debate, because baptism, which cleans away original sin, has not been given to these infants.

Saint Augustine, in his Confessions, talks about babies not being innocent. I’m sorry I can’t get a source right off the bat, I thought it was common knowledge that all humans were guilty from the moment of their conception till their baptism due to original sin.
 
SemperFidelis said:
I am struggling at the moment with grasping the current situation on Limbus Infantium (Limbo for infants). I have heard time and again that Limbo was never Dogma, but after reading this article:
seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html it seems like it’s Dogma to me. I personally believe in Limbo. The thing is those who don’t believe in Limbo usually believe that unbaptized infants can get to heaven. Thinking this directly contradicts the Council of Florence, as well as the Council of Lyons. So basically there can be only two outcomes that comply with Church teaching: either unbaptized infants go to Limbo, or they go to hell (I know Limbo is part of hell, but the punishments aren’t the same). I don’t see them going to hell, so I say Limbo. What bothers me is that the Church (including the new Catechism) seems to believe that unbaptized Catholics can reach heaven. As stated earlier, this line of thinking clearly contradicts the two Councils I mentioned above, let alone several teachings by several Popes including: Popes Innocent II, Pius VI, Pius XII, Sixtus V, and John XXII, as well as many other Catechisms. Can someone straighten me out here?
Click to expand...
It was, it’s not anymore.
 
To make a sort of pun, I would assume the babies to be in a theological limbo.

In a way they are damned by not being baptized and forgiven of original sin.

In another way they, like the just of the old covenent, often never had a chance to be baptized.

There are several other ways to look at it, but in the end we cannot expressly define it. As such we leave them in a ‘dogmatic’ limbo of which God is the only arbiter. I have always held that nothing we do or fail to do can bind the Will of God. If they all go to Hell several people would say its unfair or unjust. However, if it the will of God then it is fair and just because only He understands the totallity of exsistence and doesn’t do anything except what is right and proper.
 
DRVSVS_VERAVIR said:
Haven’t you heard of original sin? 😉 That is what makes it such a debate, because baptism, which cleans away original sin, has not been given to these infants.

Saint Augustine, in his Confessions, talks about babies not being innocent. I’m sorry I can’t get a source right off the bat, I thought it was common knowledge that all humans were guilty from the moment of their conception till their baptism due to original sin.
Click to expand...
St Agustine may have been a great saint, but he was wrong on that one. Original Sin is imputed to us from our original parents; it is not something we are guilty of. Babies are innocent, as they have made no other choice; Original sin is not their choice. That does not deny the need for Baptism; but the need for baptism doesn not imply personal guilt.
 
marci said:
However, we are bound by God’s law, but He is not bound. We have no way of knowing whether or not He allows salvation to babies or young children, who by no fault of their own, died before being baptized. Not to mention those who die in miscarriage or abortion. The majority of pregnancies are miscarried before a woman even knows she is pregnant.

I find no conflict in having hope for those innocent of actual sin, having died before birth or before the age of reason. I trust in God’s mercy for these little ones. If the church believes salvation exists for non-christian, unbaptized adults, is it really such a stretch to believe that He might have a special plan for babies?

I know of nothing more cruel then telling a catholic woman who had every intention of baptizing her baby after birth that because that baby died in the womb, she will never see her child in Heaven.

Of Course, this is all just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I don’t 't know what God other people worship but the God I worship loves me so much He is placed upon my tongue as food for my journey to him.
I have only to contemplate Hope, and I find Charity, and Faith.

Don’t we pray Jesus descend unto the dead… and what of all those faithful who awaited the coming of the Messiah, and who are mentioned in the Mass?

God’s Mercy is predominant in the Old and new Testaments. If you live in His hope you live in His Mercy.

My son’s baby was born dead with a birth defect last January, and while his tiny body was still warm from his mother’s womb, a Catholic priest conditionally baptized him. He is buried in a Catholic cemetery.
A brother of mine, born two siblings before me and i’m 53 now, was still born and my parents baptized him immediately after birth . He was buried in the Catholic cemetery.
Theresa
 
This may shed some light on this subject. Here is what the Catechism indirectly says about Limbo:

"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,“64 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.” (CCC 1261)
 
SEMPER Fidelis,
i am moved by the reply u gave on the Limbo issue; specifically the quot from Sixtus V. You must be a guru in Latin or where else did u get the English translation of such a text. when i saw that post of yours, it was a big relief to me because i have been struggling to desperation for a some weeks now to identify and translate some bits of some documents. My interest in this field is on the issue of abortion.
Please can you give me the English Translation of the parts of these quotes as they are related to the abortion issue?
Gregory XIV’s “Sedes Apostolica”, 31 maii 1591 #1,2
Pius IX, “Apotolicae Sedis” 12 Oct. 1869 # III, n. 2
S.C.S. Off., 24 iul. 1895; 4 maii 1998, ad 2.

Thanks for your understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top