Limbo? I don't understand

[JoeyWarren]

I like your quote on Gandhi… here’s another one you’ll like: “Nonviolence is the first article of my faith, it is also the last article of my creed.”

All things considered, Ghandi was talking about non-catholics IMHO.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

It’s very vague to live by this standard. It’s kind of like, “I could explain it, but I won’t, so if you don’t like it, go away.” I believe that an explanation is relevent, eastern thought is that you should never follow a belief or idea unless it’s logical, reasonable, moral, etc… You need evidence to back up your ideas.

Would not it be a great world if more people held that standard. I just told a Protestant that earlier today and was laughed at, they feel they don’t need to prove their allegations, while I have to, what a double standard. That is why I gave up evangelical apologetics, I present my case, and leave it up them to decide whether they will believe it.

It is logical to those who understand Catholic theology, but I’m afraid that’s a lot harder to the man who will not believe. It [Limbo] is a divinely revealed dogma, binding upon the conscience of Catholics. It is completely abstract, thus, should I then produce evidence of a black hole? Or that of ultra violent light? I can’t produce hard tangible evidence, it is completely abstract, thus, to him who rejects the existence of all things untangible, he must also reject the sun, as he cannot toutch it.

 

[tdgesq]

That’s a great post Carlus. There are a couple of other items I’d like to address. It is true that without the grace of baptism that removes original sin a person, whether an infant or not, is destined upon death to descend immediately to hell. However, it is also clear this grace can be conferred apart from the formal sacrament of Baptism, even to infants.

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X

Children’s limbo, on the other hand, is not a dogma of the Church. Catholics are free to accept or reject it. But I think before choosing to reject it Catholics need to ask themselves why they are making that decision. It is a theory that has been widely accepted by Catholic theologians since the time of Aquinas and arguably even before that. I find Aquinas’ reasons for it persuasive, especially in the absence of any clear alternatives.

 

[VociMike]

Children’s limbo, on the other hand, is not a dogma of the Church. Catholics are free to accept or reject it. But I think before choosing to reject it Catholics need to ask themselves why they are making that decision. It is a theory that has been widely accepted by Catholic theologians since the time of Aquinas and arguably even before that. I find Aquinas’ reasons for it persuasive, especially in the absence of any clear alternatives.

I reject Limbo because I think the concept of perfect (natural) happiness without God is an impossible and contradictory concept.

 

[down_under]

That all depends on your concept of hell. I believe that hell is nothing more then a place which God set aside for us, where He will not go. On judgement day we will make a decision, whether or not we wish to be will God. If we do not wish to be with God, He will respect that and send us to a place He has made where we can be away from Him.

However, being away from God, being seperated completly is like losing a loved one. When someone you love dies, and you feel the pain of what feels like love lost, that (I think) is similer to the pain of hell. Only we feel that on a much higher level, and the feeling does not go away.

In the end hell is nothing more then a choice, and God respecting that choice.

Could be that this is another thread but I could not help but notice that you did not mention deamons. Or more correctly Fallen Angles. Yea they reside in hell and rull over the human who go there and pretty much do whatever they want with and to them for all eternity. You also did not mention the fire. Christ mentioned the fire thats why I say that.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Jesus mentions the punishments of hell in fifteen places in scripture. Hell is called a place of torments, an unquenchable fire, an everlasting fire, a bottomless pit, everlasting punishment and outer darkness.

The Baltimore Catechism says that the condemned in hell will suffer the pain of loss and the pain of sense. Also that no one can ever adequately understand the torments of hell, just as we are incapable of understanding the joys of heaven.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

That’s a great post Carlus. There are a couple of other items I’d like to address. It is true that without the grace of baptism that removes original sin a person, whether an infant or not, is destined upon death to descend immediately to hell. However, it is also clear this grace can be conferred apart from the formal sacrament of Baptism, even to infants.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X

Children’s limbo, on the other hand, is not a dogma of the Church. Catholics are free to accept or reject it. But I think before choosing to reject it Catholics need to ask themselves why they are making that decision. It is a theory that has been widely accepted by Catholic theologians since the time of Aquinas and arguably even before that. I find Aquinas’ reasons for it persuasive, especially in the absence of any clear alternatives.

Limbo is a dogma of the Church, I’d post the ex cathedra pronouncements, but there is a character limit, so we’ll make do with my earlier post, which proves that the Popes and the Councils accepted the fact that those without baptism descend into Hell, and Children there, but experience only the separation from God. Grace must be applied according to the teaching of the Church, and the sacraments are the means of applying that grace [sanctifying] without which, no matter what, one does not receive the grace.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

 

[tdgesq]

Limbo is a dogma of the Church, I’d post the ex cathedra pronouncements, but there is a character limit, so we’ll make do with my earlier post, which proves that the Popes and the Councils accepted the fact that those without baptism descend into Hell, and Children there, but experience only the separation from God.

An ex cathedra pronouncement establishing limbus infantium? I’ve never heard of such a thing. You’ll have to give me some links so I can take a look. The quote you provided below doesn’t qualify for several reasons that we’ll take a look at in a bit.

Grace must be applied according to the teaching of the Church, and the sacraments are the means of applying that grace [sanctifying] without which, no matter what, one does not receive the grace.

Yes, the grace is necessary, but it can be dispensed through means other than the formal sacramental system. If you disagree, then you must reject baptism of blood and baptism of desire, both of which are dogmas of the Church. This is really beyond dispute, but if you want me to provide you with the evidence, I would be glad to do that.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Pope Pius is not establishing the doctrine of limbo here. He is condemning the doctrine that equates limbo with a Pelagian heresy. And I’m glad he did since they clearly are not the same thing. It is far from evident that he intended to bind the entire Church finally and irrevocably that it has been divinely revealed that limbo of the children exists, especially under such an incomplete definition.

I think you are confusing the doctrine concerned with different degrees of punishment in hell with children’s limbo.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That is a relief, because it seemed rather inacurrate to me as well. Does this speculation of limbo also extend to others who have not been baptized? Atheists for example?

It could extend to anyone who dies without Baptism, except of course those who die in grave, intentional sin.

 

[Hellisreal]

Jesus mentions the punishments of hell in fifteen places in scripture. Hell is called a place of torments, an unquenchable fire, an everlasting fire, a bottomless pit, everlasting punishment and outer darkness.

The Baltimore Catechism says that the condemned in hell will suffer the pain of loss and the pain of sense. Also that no one can ever adequately understand the torments of hell, just as we are incapable of understanding the joys of heaven.

Hellisreal, but its downplayed, thanks to the Hans von B.s’s of the world ect.
(Theologians who have some real problems)

But, I agree. Hell is simply not something most want to even entertain in their minds, let alone think Their “buddy Jesus” WWJD types would ever inflict on their always saved souls…

Bwahhhaaaha

(Satan)

I got them to eat fruit, and I got them into thinking there is no wailing an gnashing of teeth!!!

Bwaaahaaa ha

 

[1962Missal]

I reject Limbo because I think the concept of perfect (natural) happiness without God is an impossible and contradictory concept.

But some theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas among them, argued that those who die in original sin only, the Separated Souls, are united forever to God in a manner proportionate to nature. It is only of the strictly supernatural end of the Beatific Vision that the Separated Souls are deprived.

Justin

 

[Anim8]

Wow, this thread has exploded since last I saw it.

(this is gonna be one long post)

You choose to be sad, and you choose to be happy.

I disagree. I can say “I want to be happy” but that will do nothing. Happiness is a feeling, a reaction, and as a reaction something must come first to bring about that happiness. Happiness or sadness are merely consequences.

All actions have consequences, if you choose the correct answers on a test, the consequence is you get an A. Now, we all want to do well and get A’s right? So therefore we must choose the correct answer, and of course in order to do that we must study.

If you want to get to heaven, just like getting those A’s, you must make the right choice. And in order to make that choice, like studying, you must make good choices throughout your life. Now its possible to get to heaven without making good choices in our life, but most likely if you cannot surrender yourself to God in this life, you won’t be able to in the next.

The only hell is the one you make in your mind, and your mind projecting it onto your surroundings.

You said you are buddhist, I’m really not familiar with that religion , do you believe in a life after death? And if so, is there any form of judgment? It seems from your posts that if there is a life after death, there is no hell, therefore in my mind it doesn’t matter what we do in this life (similar to an atheistic mindset).

It’s not quite that simple. Even those, yes, those who choose hell freely go there, it is because they will never be able to stand in the presence of God, by the life they lived and the sins they did not seek forgiveness for. Those who die impenitent will go to hell. If the life someone lives is void of God and full of sin, it is unlikely they will be able to suddenly choose heaven at the moment of particular judgment.

Granted, what I wrote was a short summery. Plus I was at work so I had to hurry back to what I was doing before.

The fact that unbaptized infants are conceived in a state of original sin and that they cannot be freed from original sin without baptism, and that infants are excluded from the beatific vision if they die unbaptized, is a solemnly defined dogma just as Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception.

…It [Limbo] is a divinely revealed dogma

…Limbo is a dogma of the Church, I’d post the ex cathedra pronouncements, but there is a character limit, so we’ll make do with my earlier post

It is my understanding that there is no official Church teaching on limbo. It is only theological speculation. I called up my father ( a Deacon and moral theologian who has been teaching at Franciscan University for several years) who told me the same. Now, I’m not saying he is the end all be all, but I have looked and can find no official Church teaching on the subject.

Would you mind sharing some sources?

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 --CCC 847

Could be that this is another thread but I could not help but notice that you did not mention deamons. Or more correctly Fallen Angles. Yea they reside in hell and rull over the human who go there and pretty much do whatever they want with and to them for all eternity. You also did not mention the fire. Christ mentioned the fire thats why I say that.

Fallen angels made the choice not to be with God, the reason the ‘rule’ in hell is because they are bigger and stronger then we are. The bully on the playground.

The fire? I would say that the pain of feeling separated from God could be described as a fire. I won’t go into too much, but I have felt the feeling I am talking about. It was a much smaller degree then what someone would feel in hell, but I believe that at a point in my life (I’m not going to go into details) I felt a very deep separation from God, and in all honesty I can imagine no worse feeling.

 

[a_priori]

Was the thief on the Cross denied the Beatific Vision because he wasn’t baptized?

 

[clmowry]

No. It is not dogma.

It may at different times in Church history been a more (or less) prominent theological position, but is not Dogma and it is not part of the Apostolic position.

Please prove your assertion.

The quote you give below certainly does not establish such

Chuck

Limbo is a dogma of the Church, I’d post the ex cathedra pronouncements, but there is a character limit, so we’ll make do with my earlier post, which proves that the Popes and the Councils accepted the fact that those without baptism descend into Hell, and Children there, but experience only the separation from God. Grace must be applied according to the teaching of the Church, and the sacraments are the means of applying that grace [sanctifying] without which, no matter what, one does not receive the grace.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

 

[japhy]

Is physical baptism required, or does baptism by blood or baptism by desire count? Or is that the grace endowed through baptism (ordinarily) is required, which means it could be supplied by extraordinary means known only to God?

Is the desire of the parents to baptize their child (before it is born, even) sufficient? Or are miscarriages – and even those most minute humans, those comprised of only a few cells that fail to cling to the uterine lining for whatever reason, even natural ones – without hope at all? In other words, has God given us a world in which there is, for a set of people, positively no hope of salvation?

(Edit: let me add that when I say salvation, I don’t mean salvation from the fires of Hell, I mean that reward of Heaven promised to those who endure in the faith.)

 

[VociMike]

Was the thief on the Cross denied the Beatific Vision because he wasn’t baptized?

Or, for that matter, all of the prophets and saints of the Old Testament? Were Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah etc all denied heaven?

 

[Greg27]

Limbo is an intermediate realm where the unbaptised (and perhaps also virtuous pagans not released from hell in Christ’s harrowing) of natural happiness went when they died, in which they neither endured eternal torment nor the eternal bliss of the beatific vision. It is apart from purgatory, which is a state of purification the blessed undergo before entering into the beatific vision of God.

 

[japhy]

Or, for that matter, all of the prophets and saints of the Old Testament? Were Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah etc all denied heaven?

But the economy of baptism did not exist then. The prevailing tradition is that the souls of the righteous were kept in the Bosom of Abraham (the Limbo of the Fathers, I believe is another name for it) until the death of Jesus. Whether they went to Heaven when Jesus descended to the dead, or at his resurrection, or after it, or before or after his Ascension, I couldn’t tell you.

Matthew 27:52-53 speaks of the raising of many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep which appeared to people in the holy city after Jesus’s resurrection. This could mean, perhaps, that the O.T. righteous ascended body and soul into Heaven, some time after the resurrection of Jesus.

Church Father commentary on this passage of the gospel:

HILARY:

The graves were opened, for the bands of death were loosed. And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, for illumining the darkness of death, and shedding light upon the gloom of Hades, He robbed the spirits of death.

CHRYS:

When He remained on the cross they had said tauntingly, He saved others, himself he cannot save. But what He would not do for Himself, that He did and more than that for the bodies of the Saints. For if it was a great thing to raise Lazarus after four days, much more was it that they who had long slept should now show themselves alive; this is indeed a proof of the resurrection to come. But that it might not be thought that that which was done was an appearance merely, the Evangelist adds, And came out of the graves after his is resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.

JEROME:

As Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to show forth the Lord’s resurrection; yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead. The holy city in which they were seen after they had risen may be understood to mean either the heavenly Jerusalem, or this earthly, which once had been holy. For the city of Jerusalem was called Holy on account of the Temple and the Holy of Holies, and to distinguish it from other cities in which idols were worshipped. When it is said, And appeared to many, it is signified that this was not a general resurrection which all should see, but special, seen only by such as were worthy to see it.

REMIG:

But some one will ask, what became of those who rose again when the Lord rose. We must believe that they rose again to be witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection. Some have said that they died again, and were turned to dust, as Lazarus and the rest whom the Lord raised. But we must by no means give credit to these men’s sayings, since if they were to die again, it would be greater torment to them, than if they had not risen again. We ought therefore to believe without hesitation that they who rose from the dead at the Lord’s resurrection, ascended also into heaven together with Him.

ORIGEN:

The graves are the bodies of sinful souls, that is, souls dead to God; but when by God’s grace these souls have been raised, their bodies which before were graves, become bodies of Saints, and appear to go out of themselves, and follow Him who rose again, and walk with Him in newness of life; and such as are worthy to have their conversation in heaven enter into the Holy City at divers times, and appear to many who see their good works.

In addition, Thomas Aquinas deals with this in his Summa Theologica; he presents two scenarios (although his conclusion differs from my personal conclusion). See ST III, Q 53, A 3 (objection 2 and its response).

 

[Alda]

We had a feature on Limbo on the news here a few weeks ago. It was a big story with footage of the Pope and all, saying that the Catholic Church had now rejected the teaching of Limbo as a restrictive view of salvation.

 

[1962Missal]

Was the thief on the Cross denied the Beatific Vision because he wasn’t baptized?

No, the Church clearly teaches that Baptism was not made obligatory until after the Resurrection (Matt 28:19).

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

Justin